IS300 in ITS? [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Ron Earp

09-12-2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 7 2005, 12:04 AM
BTW: It would weigh ABOUT 3600 in ITS given it's specs... :018:

59753

Andy,

I respectfully disagree with the weight. Look at the numbers:

You've got a BMW 325 with a 2.5L inline 6 that makes, stock, 189 hp. That is 75.6 hp/L. And, this car is classed at 2800lbs (which IMHO is too light, but a different story). *SORRY - I MISSED WEIGHT FROM MEMORY BY 50LBS, MY BAD*

Now, the Lexus is a 3L motor with 215hp stock, which works out to 71.1 hp/L, slightly less efficient as one might expect.

Both motors have four valve heads and both motors have variable valve timing stock, they are very comparable.

If one was to use the ratio of weight to hp, that is classed weight, then for the BMW one would get:

2800 lbs /189 hp = 14.8 lbs/hp.

So, we want class parity therefore we'll use 14.8 lbs/hp as the benchmark and solve the Lexus for weight:

X / 215 hp = 14.8 lbs/hp, and we get X = 3185 lbs. So, class the car at 3185lbs to start with. Or a little higher if one wants to make sure it doesn't become a front runner straightaway.

You can do it with torque to and get a slightly different number if you wish, but there is no way you're going to get 3600lbs. Unless, of course, you just want the car to be non-competitive so that nobody will build one.

It will not be easy to make power with the Lexus inline 6, it'll take a lot of time and development before one of these at 3185 lbs is near a BMW. You just can't use your credit card and order good parts for one, like you can with a BMW. And, when a Lexus gets near a BMW then the adjustment board can simply put a restrictor on it and slap it back down.

R

Andy Bettencourt

09-12-2005, 04:21 PM

The whole flaw in the arguement is that you are using one of the most misclassed cars as your 'control'.

If classed today, the 325 SHOULD be in excess of 3300 based on it's numbers. Instead of that kind of weight, a Restrictor Plate has been put in place as a FIRST STEP to controlling the performance potential of the car as we currently know it.

The car that is often compared to the IS300 if the E46 330, not the E36 325 at 189hp.

Ron, if you use your example to class the IS300, you have TWO overdogs in ITS instead of one. Anything over 200 stock HP HAS TO go to another class or else we start using Single Inlet Restrictors (SIR's) to control everything...

(Also remember that the SAME 3.0L motor was in the NA Supra's with a slight exhaust difference - and was rated at 222hp. Never underestimate the reach of the Import Tuner market... http://www.nexusindustry.com/alpha_interfa...&OVMTC=standard (http://www.nexusindustry.com/alpha_interface_dyno.htm?OVRAW=is300%20header&OVKEY=is300%20header&OVMTC=standard) )

Why add another problem child? Is there a pocket of IS owners banging down the door of another sanctioning body trying to find a place to race door to door?

AB

Bruce Shafer

09-12-2005, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 12 2005, 04:21 PM
Instead of that kind of weight, a Restrictor Plate has been put in place as a FIRST STEP to controlling the performance potential of the car as we currently know it.

OK, I give up. What is the second step? And when should we be expecting it?

BTW, the E36 weighs 2850 in ITS.

lateapex911

09-12-2005, 05:51 PM

Also, look at the "meat" of ITS, the Z car and the RX-7.

In terms of real actual wheel HP, the 7 puts down, what 180? And the E36 is in the 217 plus range. Torque-wise of course, they are worlds apart.

So, you have to assume the Lexus motor will gain some hp in an IT build, ease of build notwithstanding. Just the standard stuff will have it putting more power down than ITS has ever seen. Theoretically, if we take the known BMW gains, this motor will put down in the strong 250 range. Solving that number to the Z car/RX-7 level yields a weight in the mid 3000 lbs.

As it stands, the current weight of the E36 is obviously not on par with the rest of the class, so it follows that, to class a Lexus correctly, not only would it be heavier than the E36, but that the E36 can't be used as a benchmark, or a desired "bogey" so to speak.

I would love to see it added, but it has to be done properly.

Personally speaking, I think classing anything in teh 3500 pound range is getting too far from the linear tire response curve, and I hate to see that. I DO want cars like this classed and running, but I DO NOT like the idea of classing them at 3500 pounds on 7" wide wheels.

Are there a lot of cars that would actually show up and run if they were classed fairly? What if they were classed at say 3000, and ran 8" rims, in a class above ITS, call it "ITR"? Would more show up?

Andy Bettencourt

09-12-2005, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 12 2005, 03:47 PM
OK, I give up. What is the second step? And when should we be expecting it?

BTW, the E36 weighs 2850 in ITS.

60030

I don't think anyone misquoted the weight of the E36 in ITS, did they?

Nothing to be done to ANY car in terms of a PCA until all the data is in. The RP on the E36 has yet to be fully analyzed. Nothing is on the horizon but SIR's HAVE been talked about in the context of higher HP cars LIKE the E36, E46, and others over 200hp stock - as has a class above ITS.

AB

mlytle

09-12-2005, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 12 2005, 10:33 PM
I don't think anyone misquoted the weight of the E36 in ITS, did they?

AB

60035

go back and read post #7..... 2800lbs.

Andy Bettencourt

09-12-2005, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 12 2005, 07:07 PM
go back and read post #7..... 2800lbs.

60038

Thanks!

AB

robits325is

09-12-2005, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 12 2005, 06:33 PM
Nothing is on the horizon but SIR's HAVE been talked about in the context of higher HP cars LIKE the E36, E46, and others over 200hp stock - as has a class above ITS.

AB

60035

Reading that, it sounds like you are trying to group the current ITS BMWs with other cars that are over 200hp.

E-36 325i/is has 189hp per the manufacturer
E-46 323i has 170hp per the manufacturer

Rob Driscoll

Ron Earp

09-12-2005, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 12 2005, 08:21 PM
The whole flaw in the arguement is that you are using one of the most misclassed cars as your 'control'.
60027

Was that a flaw, or a cleverly constructed plan? :blink:

lateapex911

09-12-2005, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Sep 12 2005, 10:39 PM
Was that a flaw, or a cleverly constructed plan? :blink:

60045

Laughing, well, trust me, the E36 has NOT fallen off the radar....

Andy Bettencourt

09-12-2005, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by robits325is@Sep 12 2005, 09:19 PM
Reading that, it sounds like you are trying to group the current ITS BMWs with other cars that are over 200hp.

E-36 325i/is has 189hp per the manufacturer
E-46 323i has 170hp per the manufacturer

Rob Driscoll

60044

Nope, just listing some cars that would fit if SIR's were the wave of the future....heck, the E36 325, 328, M3, E46 330...and beyond.

I-6's aside, anything over 200 is pretty high for ITS.

AB

Bruce Shafer

09-13-2005, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 12 2005, 05:51 PM
And the E36 is in the 217 plus range. Torque-wise of course, they are worlds apart.

And once again we are hearing about the mythical 217 hp at the rear wheels M50 motor. The motor that for some reason is only made available to drivers that race in competing makes, i.e. Mazda, Nissan, Honda, etc. or members of the ITAC. Too bad us BMW drivers can't get hold of this motor. :rolleyes:

Try 195 HP @ rear wheels prior to the restrictor plate. SCCA has the dyno sheets. :P

Andy Bettencourt

09-13-2005, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 13 2005, 10:19 AM

Try 195 HP @ rear wheels prior to the restrictor plate. SCCA has the dyno sheets. :P

60072

Bruce, are you claiming that your motor is a 100% effort?

AB

Bruce Shafer

09-13-2005, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 13 2005, 11:58 AM
Bruce, are you claiming that your motor is a 100% effort?

AB

Yes as far as I am concerned, built to the max for IT. As I have stated before I do not have MOTEC, the minute I buy that it’ll be outlawed.

Now I’m going to sit back and wait for somebody to get on here and say that MOTEC is good for 22 hp at the rear wheels. I need a real good laugh! :happy204:

I’ve provided my proof. Now it’s your turn to provide something more than innuendo and BS.

its66

09-13-2005, 02:01 PM

Wow, an E36 "disagreement" that i didn't start. :)

Bruce,
Was that your dad's 911 I saw at Sebring labor day? Nice..

dspillrat

09-13-2005, 02:33 PM

Haven't been in the loop this year..or last for that matter. have to throw in my 2 cents here on the 325 HP...oopps 325i ITS cars...
222-227 RWHP for what I saw in fall 2003 .......12.75-13 lbs per horsie.

david spillman

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 13 2005, 03:19 PM
And once again we are hearing about the mythical 217 hp at the rear wheels M50 motor. Try 195 HP @ rear wheels prior to the restrictor plate. SCCA has the dyno sheets. :P

60072

Bruce Shafer

09-13-2005, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by its66@Sep 13 2005, 02:01 PM

Bruce,
Was that your dad's 911 I saw at Sebring labor day? Nice..

Yes, another German car to push around the paddock. Weber carbs are a blast, not to mention all the other idiosyncrasies with that car. He's been wanting me to drive and sort that thing out for about 6 months now. The minute I get in there, that engine will come apart. I’m tired of working on race cars…

If I had known you were at the track I would have stopped by. It was actually a nice relaxing weekend not running my car. :023:

Bill Miller

09-13-2005, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 13 2005, 02:01 PM
Yes as far as I am concerned, built to the max for IT. As I have stated before I do not have MOTEC, the minute I buy that it’ll be outlawed.

Now I’m going to sit back and wait for somebody to get on here and say that MOTEC is good for 22 hp at the rear wheels. I need a real good laugh! :happy204:

I’ve provided my proof. Now it’s your turn to provide something more than innuendo and BS.

60085

IIRC, didn't James Clay say that they were getting RWHP on the North side of 200? I'd have to go back through the archives, but that's the way I remember it.

Andy Bettencourt

09-13-2005, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 13 2005, 01:01 PM
Yes as far as I am concerned, built to the max for IT. As I have stated before I do not have MOTEC, the minute I buy that it’ll be outlawed.

Now I’m going to sit back and wait for somebody to get on here and say that MOTEC is good for 22 hp at the rear wheels. I need a real good laugh! :happy204:

I’ve provided my proof. Now it’s your turn to provide something more than innuendo and BS.

60085

Actually, you have provided DATA, not proof. Spillman above quotes over 220...VanSteenburg's car made in excess of 215 - we use the same dyno guy in MA.

Without a MOTEC-type system, you are not at 100% and your 'data' can't be used as the gold standard. We thank you for the data, but it is just part of the puzzle. I am betting Miller will find that stuff from BW...

It's ok, you are still winning....

AB

Bruce Shafer

09-13-2005, 04:41 PM

Yes, I provided data. Data that didn't fall into line with the preconcieved notions of this website and the ITAC.

I do feel it's possible for an IT M50 to be over 200 hp, but not much. I say 205 max with Motec and everything else including the kitchen sink.

Case in point, I have dyno sheets somewhere from my old '95 M3 3L that pretty much had a motor in IT trim, intake, header, FF exhaust, custom dyno tuned Conforti chip (burned by Jim himself). 224 hp at the rear wheels and that car was rocket ship. The HP numbers quoted by some folks just don't add up.

mlytle

09-13-2005, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 13 2005, 06:01 PM
Yes as far as I am concerned, built to the max for IT. As I have stated before I do not have MOTEC, the minute I buy that it’ll be outlawed.

Now I’m going to sit back and wait for somebody to get on here and say that MOTEC is good for 22 hp at the rear wheels. I need a real good laugh! :happy204:

I’ve provided my proof. Now it’s your turn to provide something more than innuendo and BS.

60085

and of course all the hp claims are relative to the type of dyno, weather, etc. i am not an expert on the differences between dynos. i have heard from many sources there can be 10-20% difference in numbers between dyno brands. true? false?

Banzai240

09-13-2005, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 13 2005, 03:19 PM
Try 195 HP @ rear wheels prior to the restrictor plate. SCCA has the dyno sheets. :P

60072

First, let's just get this out of the way... the restrictor plate has NO effect on these motors... The throttle plates are NOT the limiting point of these engines, and were WAY larger than necessary in the first place, so the restrictor is a non-issue and hasn't slowed anyone down...

As for the data... using the data Bruce has provided, which, no offense intended, can be considered an over-the-counter example of a shop-built car (Bimmerworld, right???), the BMW E-36 needs to weigh 3,100lbs in ITS based on the current classification process using dyno data for HP figures, BEFORE adders...... And that weight would STILL put it at the very top of the performance envelope...

If this car were being classified WITHOUT Bruces data, but rather simply using stock hp figures as we do with all the other cars, it's weight would be about 3291lbs BEFORE adders...

NONE of these numbers or the fact that we are discussing this has anything to do with the cars on-track performance or finishes, etc... It's all simply based on the mechanical properties of the car as it exists in race form... JUST like we figure all the other cars we've classified/adjusted...

The baseline for the class is basically the 240Z or the 2nd Gen RX-7, so these numbers are in comparison to equally as well known values as these two cars present...

There isn't a BMW "witch hunt", and no one is out to "get" the BMWs... These are hard numbers based on real information and derived from a defined process...

So, either way (Bruce's numbers or derived numbers), the BMW is WAY underweight to be fairly classified in ITS... OR, it desprately needs a more effective restrictor... At it's current weight (2850lbs)... It needs to be restricted to approximately 220+/- flywheel HP to be on par with the 240Z and the 2nd Gen RX-7...

Fire away... :bash_1_:

lateapex911

09-13-2005, 06:16 PM

(I was being conservative with the 217 I quoted)

Now, with what Darin just stated, and assuming that the dyno sheets from credible souces are repeatable and consistant, ....

and snce we have some BMW guys here....I have a question for them.

First, I assume nobody racing a BMW wants to have either a real or a perceived overdog, right? I mean, whats the point in winning if everyone walks away saying, "Well, I was first in class...NON BMW class that is.,....." right? It must be a rather hollow victory for a BMW driver....

So, IF there were restrictions to be made, would the E36 guys rather it be all weight, or an SIR to limit the power (not low end torque) to a level more in line with the class targets?
(The Z car and the RX-7)

lateapex911

09-13-2005, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 13 2005, 03:05 PM
IIRC, didn't James Clay say that they were getting RWHP on the North side of 200? I'd have to go back through the archives, but that's the way I remember it.

60090

As I recall, and it was a long time ago, it was possible to deduce that from his comments...as in "Definately under 225, but thats all I'm saying", then there was a comment about non motecs coming in around 215 strong.

So, I thought calling it 217 was a safe non debateable number....

Also from what I understand, Motec does a lot to "fill in" the curve, rather than add only to the peak number.

Bill Miller

09-13-2005, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 13 2005, 03:51 PM
I am betting Miller will find that stuff from BW...

AB

60093

Thanks Andy, I think.

robits325is

09-13-2005, 11:04 PM

When will this debate end? BMW drivers still feel that the SCCA has singled out the E-36. When the decision was made to add the restrictor plate last year was there any other Make that was as fully developed (time and $) as the top BMWs? What regions had lopsided results to justify an "extreme situation?" What have been the results this season in those regions? Has this adjustment done anything positive for ITS or IT in general? Looking at the results from my local (NARRC) ITS races this season it looks like we have taken two steps backward.

If all cars have the same horsepower than shouldn't they all weigh the same?

Does someone represent BMW drivers on the board that added the restrictor plate? If not, how do I volunteer?

Page one of the GCR states that 'Not all cars will be competitive" Why arn't there adjustments to the top 2 or 3 makes to balance out the field for everyone? Why arn't there adjustments in any other classes?

Rob Driscoll

JeffYoung

09-13-2005, 11:19 PM

Rob, I have been quiet on this thread, but good to see some life back in the board. Just mention BMW and things start a-hopping.

I have read the below, and I have to say this. EVERYONE RX7 drivers, 240zs, 240sxs, 190es, we ALL know that the E36 weights too little. It is that simple. It is the ONLY S car that is classed at several hundred pounds LESS than its curb weight (and please don't pull numbers claiming that the curb weight is 2900 lbs, it is not, and we all know it).

And I do have to say your claim that there are no other makes out ther as fully developed as BMWs is just wrong. People have taken teh 240zs and RX7s to places that were not thought possible. If you are saying that the RX7s and Zs at teh front of the field -- Chet Wittel's Orange Z or Nick's blue RX7 or Steve's black RX7 -- aren't maxed...well, you are just wrong.

Results don't tell the whole story either. There are plenty of E36s that have an average level of prep, and average drivers. Tehy get beat by RXs and 240s. But the fact of the matter is when the baddest of the bad E36s comes out to play at Road Atlanta or VIR, it wins by LOTS. WHOLE LOTS.

There is nothing against the E36. I want the car in the class. I just want it classed like everyone else's car -- at or slightly less than curb weight. You bump the weight on that car to 3100 lbs like it should be and I (and most others I think) shut up. If the car dominants at that weight, well so be it. It has a lot of othe rthings going for it as well (suspension, brakes, motor) it doesn't need a weight break as well.

lateapex911

09-13-2005, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by robits325is@Sep 13 2005, 11:04 PM

Page one of the GCR states that 'Not all cars will be competitive" Why arn't there adjustments to the top 2 or 3 makes to balance out the field for everyone? Why arn't there adjustments in any other classes?

Rob Driscoll

60117

Gears are turning as you type...the E36 is not alone, the SCCA is not trying to single out and screw the BMW drivers, or the Chevy drivers, or anyone in particular....relax.

As Darin pointed out, the math on the E36 puts it at a significant advantage to other cars in the class. There are other cars in other classes that are being looked at as well, and, you might be interested in knowing that action will likely be taken in other classes, and with other cars, before the E36 gets any adjustments. I assure you, it is receiving fair (or better) treatment.

As to the question of fully developed, I think you know that there are, or have been, many fully developed models other than the E36. The RX-7 comes to mind, as does the Z car.

As for the NARRC, is it fair to say that this year represents a full on, fully developed program from any of the local BMW drivers? It's my impression that the new program has had some growing pains and the old cars aren't seeing the same level of attention, but that's just an observation.

Z3_GoCar

09-14-2005, 12:38 AM

Hey I'm fine with adding a couple of hundred pounds to ITS BMW's as long as you take it from all the ITA BMW's :rolleyes:

Here's some food for thought:

At the last Cal club event:

ITS
1st John Noris 30:18.149 2:07.863 best lap
2nd Charles Buzzetti 31:10.890 2:10.086 best lap

ITA
1st David Lecren 31:31.023 2:22.354 best lap
2nd James Whitton 31:36.270 2:23.173 best lap

SM
1st Don Thibaut 31:10.391 2:12.472 best lap
2nd Jonathon Christian 31:10.899 2:12.595 best lap

It seems odd to me that not only would the SM field blow away the ITA field, they'd even finish well in the ITS field.

James

Bruce Shafer

09-14-2005, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 13 2005, 11:19 PM
But the fact of the matter is when the baddest of the bad E36s comes out to play at Road Atlanta or VIR, it wins by LOTS. WHOLE LOTS.

When the baddest of the bad show up at Daytona, they get beat! :018:

its66

09-14-2005, 10:01 AM

From Mylaps.com
August Double SARRC -Daytona,
Saturday

1 111 CHET WITTEL --bmw
2 27 MICHAEL FLYNN --mb
3 10 CARLOS GARCIA --bmw
4 72 SCOTT FINLAY --rx7
5 04 JEFF BUICE --bmw??? (not 100% sure)

Sunday
1 27 TODD BURAS --mb
2 10 CARLOS GARCIA --bmw
3 111 CHET WITTEL --bmw
4 4 DAN SHAVER --bmw
5 5 KEVIN J. BUSLER -rx7

I can't comment on what happens at other tracks. I know there are many factors that come into play while racing-tires, drivers, luck, accidents, mechanicals, etc. but, when you look at the results form the most recent IT stuff at Daytona, I have to disagree.

(trying hard not to get sucked into this...)

Banzai240

09-14-2005, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by its66@Sep 14 2005, 02:01 PM
1 111 CHET WITTEL --bmw
2 27 MICHAEL FLYNN --mb
3 10 CARLOS GARCIA --bmw
4 72 SCOTT FINLAY --rx7
5 04 JEFF BUICE --bmw??? (not 100% sure)

Sunday
1 27 TODD BURAS --mb
2 10 CARLOS GARCIA --bmw
3 111 CHET WITTEL --bmw
4 4 DAN SHAVER --bmw
5 5 KEVIN J. BUSLER -rx7

60128

Please excuse my ignorance, but what's an "--mb"??

Bill Miller

09-14-2005, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 10:10 AM
Please excuse my ignorance, but what's an "--mb"??

60129

Darin,

I'm guessing it's a Mercedes-Benz 190 2.3 16v. Please shoot me an IM or email regarding our last conversation.

lateapex911

09-14-2005, 10:56 AM

I'm guessing it's the flying Irish Mikes (or whatever it's called, LOL) Mercedes Benz ....the one that was the E30 M3 equivilent. Can't remember the exact model name. I think it's the 4 cyl 2.3 ltr 16V 190E, but I can't swear on it. I have seen it at Atlanta, looks pretty cool in a calmed down German Touring car kinda way.

its66

09-14-2005, 11:05 AM

Correct. Mercedes. Saturday It was driven by Irish Mike. Sunday, it was flown by Todd Buras--great job again...

imported_Webmaster

09-14-2005, 12:29 PM

Holy Hi-Jacked post batmat... :angry:
OK so is anyone going to answer the original poster's question? :(

And now for the "just as guilty" joining the hijacking of this post. :P MB photos:

http://www.improvedtouring.com/images/ITS/atl_3_4_7.JPG
http://www.improvedtouring.com/images/ITS/Evans_89_190.jpg

mlytle

09-14-2005, 12:32 PM

some "baddest of the bad" bmw's have run at watkins glen......and yet the track record was smashed in july of this year.....by an rx7.

has anyone compiled a list of track records and what car holds them? not a definitive "proof" of course, but another data set in the mix.

JeffYoung

09-14-2005, 01:05 PM

Ok, let's boil it down to this, since results are always going to be subjective and a moving target.

I would lke a BMW driver to post here, with a straight face, that the car is classed at the correct weight.

Cause it's not.

That's the only issue with the car. I don't care if it makes 222 rwhp or 195. Doesn't matter -- what you can do legally within the rules is legit. But the car weight is just plain wrong.

Bill Miller

09-14-2005, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 14 2005, 01:05 PM
Ok, let's boil it down to this, since results are always going to be subjective and a moving target.

I would lke a BMW driver to post here, with a straight face, that the car is classed at the correct weight.

Cause it's not.

That's the only issue with the car. I don't care if it makes 222 rwhp or 195. Doesn't matter -- what you can do legally within the rules is legit. But the car weight is just plain wrong.

60144

[Devil's advocate] Jeff, what IS the CORRECT weight? [/Devil's advocate]

Darin's posted up some numbers, based on the ITAC's process. If that's what's in place, then that's what's in place. As he said, they're not based on on-track data, they're based on performance data. Seems pretty objective to me. To me, the on-track data simply support the fact that the process predicts a higher weight than is currently spec'd.

Here's what the process says the weight should be, so that's what it is.

Unfortunately, it's not really a two-way street. It will be born out rather quickly, if the predicted weight is too low. However, if it's too high, it will take considerably longer to demonstrate that fact. A considerable amount of development time and effort, will have to be expended, by multiple drivers of the same car.

robits325is

09-14-2005, 02:37 PM

If Nicks blue RX-7 was maxed out (10/10ths to quote) last year at the ARRC when the restrictor plate topic really heated up then how did he set new lap records around the NER this year?

BMW owners/drivers just keep pushing the envelope of development within the rules. Should they be penalized? Should everyone else get a helping hand to keep things equal? Where is the performance ceiling set?

Rob

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 13 2005, 11:19 PM
And I do have to say your claim that there are no other makes out ther as fully developed as BMWs is just wrong. People have taken teh 240zs and RX7s to places that were not thought possible. If you are saying that the RX7s and Zs at teh front of the field -- Chet Wittel's Orange Z or Nick's blue RX7 or Steve's black RX7 -- aren't maxed...well, you are just wrong.

60120

lateapex911

09-14-2005, 02:58 PM

Bill, I gotta hand it to you, you hit many nails on the head with that one.....

Jeff...The curb weight is taken into consideration in the process, but the question is usually, "Can this car make the weight it needs to be?"

The process defines the race weight based on creating a competitive model that fits the performance envelope.

Some cars might need to weigh, lets say, 2500 pounds to be competitive in a certain class, but it is known that they could never actually get down that low, so, the next class down is looked at, and the process is repeated for that class.

In the E36s case, it COULD get down even lower, so it might be a candidate for the class above....except there IS no class above.

The ITCS has a few examples of cars that are misclassed and/or at the wrong weights. They are being worked on.

Z3_GoCar

09-14-2005, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Webmaster@Sep 14 2005, 09:29 AM
Holy Hi-Jacked post batmat... :angry:
OK so is anyone going to answer the original poster's question? :(

:) When I came back to this thread, I was going to suggest that if you classed the IS300 into a higher class, maybe you could also class the 98-00 M-roadster into the same class. But this current tangent looks much more interesting.

As I've not got a car yet, and the Miata looks dominant out here, maybe I should just go that route. Since you can't add weight to it because of the cage, when I've got a real suspension on it with solid bushings and the non-spec roll bars, not to mention getting rid of the stock exhaust manifold and giving it a full IT build on the motor, watch out :smilie_pokal:

James

Banzai240

09-14-2005, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by robits325is@Sep 14 2005, 06:37 PM
If Nicks blue RX-7 was maxed out (10/10ths to quote) last year at the ARRC when the restrictor plate topic really heated up then how did he set new lap records around the NER this year?

60148

It's funny to me how people think that 10/10ths only involves putting parts on the car...

You guys want to know why SM is SOOO much faster than it appears it should be??? Because there are HUNDREDS of them out there tweaking, tuning, adjusting, and then SHARING that information with each other... finding the EXACT correct tire pressures, the EXACT right caster/camber combo, etc., etc.... The same might be said about the CRX... Lot's of them out there, usually driven by friendly guys who talk to each other...

Also, we are not ALL "excellent" drivers, regardless of what our egos might tell us... Just because someone has a car that they feel is built "to the limit", that doesn't mean that the car is being driven there... Development involves the driver as well, and when combined with what I mentioned above, it's possible that the driver has discovered new limits, or made a tweak which extended the limits a bit...

In reality, there is NO such thing as "Fully Developed"... Built to the max of the rules, maybe, but as I think I've shown that this does not equate to "fully developed"...

These are reasons why ON-TRACK data is NOT the basis for making IT decisions... It is, as Bill mentioned above, a good check of the process, but it's a TERRIBLE way to make decisions on adjustments... Just look at Production, where they truely penalize those who make the all-out effort by adding weight to those that are winning, regardless whether the mechanical parameters of the car warrent such adjustments...

If you run the numbers on the RX-7, both theoretical and actual dyno numbers, you'd find that it's classified as the process defines. The same is true of the 240Z. The 944 is too heavy... The 944S is a bit too light... The 240SX is close, but will require an 10/10ths effort to make that weight... Several cars are overweight at this point, some are slightly underweight at this point... Some are in the wrong class all-together... The same pattern exists in all the classes...

The BMW in question, using the exact same process, is considerably under weight... PERIOD... That's what the numbers show... both teoretical AND Actual Dyno numbers... These have NOTHING to do with BMW owners, a bias against BMWs, the fact that BMWs are expensive, or any other contrived argument as to why this car get's talked about...

ALL of the ITAC recommendations and adjustments over the past two years have been made using this process, and we will continue to do so, so long as the CRB continues to entrust us with this responsibility... And yes... getting things balanced out will take a bit of time (has taken a bit of time...), but we are working on it... We will continue to push to get these classes into a condition where the classifications make sense, and the compeition is as balanced as possible... from a mechanical parmeters standpoint, anyhow... (we can't and won't adjust classifications based on a "racing program" or, in other words, on-track performance)...

So, all this being said, the BMW IS too light, and has been since it's current weight was finalized a while back... Let's not forget that it was originally classified at 2950, and then, through some loophole in the rules and a claim that it couldn't meet that weight due to ballast not being allowed, it's weight was lowered to 2850...

This car is singled out because it IS the problem with ITS... It's an outlier on the classification list. Real data shows this... Theoretical data shows this... and on-track performance validates this... the same can NOT be said about any other car in ITS... RX-7s may perform, but the data shows they are classified correctly... the 944 does not compete... the data shows us why... 240Z... competes, data shows why...

This is about as UNBIASED a decision as the come...

Banzai240

09-14-2005, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 14 2005, 07:12 PM
Since you can't add weight to it because of the cage, when I've got a real suspension on it with solid bushings and the non-spec roll bars, not to mention getting rid of the stock exhaust manifold and giving it a full IT build on the motor, watch out :smilie_pokal:

James

60151

If the Miata proves to be overclassified, the ITAC will recommend that it receive a restrictor (Single Inlet Restrictor) to bring it's HP output back in line with the rest of the class...

It is currently classified based on theoretical and known numbers, but with the assumption that someone may be able to get a little more out of it... Again, it has already been agreed that a restrictor would be recommended if there is data to warrent it...

Z3_GoCar

09-14-2005, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 12:31 PM
Snip--
You guys want to know why SM is SOOO much faster than it appears it should be??? Because there are HUNDREDS of them out there tweaking, tuning, adjusting, and then SHARING that information with each other... finding the EXACT correct tire pressures, the EXACT right caster/camber combo, etc., etc....
--Snip

On a spec Miata the exact right camber is....as much as you can get of the adjusters :P

But seriously, I get your point that on track performance is also highly dependant on the ultimate bolt on parts, the nuts behind the wheel and also behind the wrench.

James

Z3_GoCar

09-14-2005, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 14 2005, 10:53 AM
However, if it's too high, it will take considerably longer to demonstrate that fact. A considerable amount of development time and effort, will have to be expended, by multiple drivers of the same car.

60145

Yes, how exactly do you demonstrate that a car is classed too heavy?? Couldn't it always be blamed on no one talented enough driving it, even if they in fact were? How about lack of participation? Or would that too be under not being developed/tweeked? After all who wants to build or buy a car when the best they can do with it is potentially mid pack at best? Wouldn't you use race results to determine this?

James

Bill Miller

09-14-2005, 05:49 PM

James,

That's EXACTLY why I said it wasn't a two-way street.

Jake,

Thanks! :023:

Darin,

Nicely put! :023:

Banzai240

09-14-2005, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 14 2005, 09:34 PM
Wouldn't you use race results to determine this?

James

60182

NO... First off... it is the goal of the ITAC to make this a non-issue... If all cars are classified using a balanced process, then they should be pretty close to start with... This being done, if there is hard evidence (multiple dyno data, etc.), that shows that the output of the car was over/underestimated, then adjustments may need to be made...

If you see a pattern here, then you are catching on... The idea is to classify based on the potential of the CAR, and leave the rest up to you... Race results have many factors involved with them, the cars "potential" being only one of them... They can be an indicator, but they alone do not prove/disprove the need for a change...

Super Swift

09-14-2005, 05:58 PM

I can not speak for horsepower after development, but you’re absolutely wrong on stock horsepower verses classified weight as the e36 is not the top car in such a comparison. (See data below) Any other method is subjective.
D. Jorden is also incorrect since the e36 was originally classified at 2850# which is the current weight.

1 911 T&E (70-72) 2485 175 14.20
2 Prelude non-SH (97-98) 2825 195 14.49
3 Del Sol V-tec (94-96) 2360 160 14.75
4 Calais/Achieva/Grand-Am (86-93)2655 180 14.75
5 Civic Si (99) 2360 160 14.75
6 Prelude (97-98) 2905 195 14.90
7 Corrado 2680 178 15.06
8 325 e36 (92-95) 2850 189 15.08
9 944S (87-88) 2850 188 15.16
10 Milano 3.0 (87-89) 2780 183 15.19
11 Prelude V-tec (93-96) 2905 190 15.29
12 Golf Vr6 (95-99.5) 2680 172 15.58
13 Jetta Vr6 (94-96) 2680 172 15.58
14 Cougar (99) 2650 170 15.59
15 Integra GSR (94-99) 2690 170 15.82

Z3_GoCar

09-14-2005, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 02:51 PM
This being done, if there is hard evidence (multiple dyno data, etc.), that shows that the output of the car was over/underestimated, then adjustments may need to be made...

So then who provides the dyno results? What about when there are only a few cars, or even no cars running? Again, who want's to build a car when they know it's not competitve just to get the status quo to change? How many other cars are out there like the 944 that no one runs because it's not competitive, and it's not competitve because no one runs it? A real catch 22 if you ask me.

James

Banzai240

09-14-2005, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Super Swift+Sep 14 2005, 09:58 PM-->
I can not speak for horsepower after development, but you’re absolutely wrong on stock horsepower verses classified weight as the e36 is not the top car in such a comparison. .. (See data below) Any other method is subjective.[/b]

WHO CARES about stock hp?? Other than as a starting point... All that matters is HP after it's developed, and some engines gain more than others... Because of that, some of this process HAS to be subjective... You are dreaming if you think it can be done under these conditions any other way...

<!--QuoteBegin-Super Swift@Sep 14 2005, 09:58 PM

D. Jorden is also incorrect since the e36 was originally classified at 2850# which is the current weight.

60189

The car was classified at 2850, then revised to 2950, then, as described above, revised again to 2850lbs...

Again, WHO CARES... the car is UNDER WEIGHT, based on all data available, including that sent in by BMW owners themselves... I've detailed it all above, and again, much of this is based on data PROVIDED BY BMW owners...

Interesting that it's ONLY the BMW owners who don't see the issue...

lateapex911

09-14-2005, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Super Swift@Sep 14 2005, 05:58 PM
I can not speak for horsepower after development, but you’re absolutely wrong on stock horsepower verses classified weight as the e36 is not the top car in such a comparison. (See data below) Any other method is subjective.
D. Jorden is also incorrect since the e36 was originally classified at 2850# which is the current weight.

1 911 T&E (70-72) 2485 175 14.20
2 Prelude non-SH (97-98) 2825 195 14.49
3 Del Sol V-tec (94-96) 2360 160 14.75
4 Calais/Achieva/Grand-Am (86-93)2655 180 14.75
5 Civic Si (99) 2360 160 14.75
6 Prelude (97-98) 2905 195 14.90
7 Corrado 2680 178 15.06
8 325 e36 (92-95) 2850 189 15.08
9 944S (87-88) 2850 188 15.16
10 Milano 3.0 (87-89) 2780 183 15.19
11 Prelude V-tec (93-96) 2905 190 15.2912 Golf Vr6 (95-99.5) 2680 172 15.58
13 Jetta Vr6 (94-96) 2680 172 15.58
14 Cougar (99) 2650 170 15.59
15 Integra GSR (94-99) 2690 170 15.82

60189

Well, that's an interesting list, and it does make some points, but in an inadvertant way.

Whenever possible of course, the ideal situation is for a friendly competitor to share his dyno info, post build. You'd be surprised, I guess, on the information that has been submitted, by some top drivers in well prepped cars. Sometimes we see the same car on different dynos.

First, when that happens you have a real number to use, but secondly, there are also parallels you can draw that help get similar cars pinned down. Obviously, this job would be easy if we could secretly X-ray each car as it rolls onto the track for the race, and see the HP it will make! There are some known qualities certain makes and vintages display so that makes the job a bit easier.

I highlighted two cars on the list. They both share the same weight, but their power is off.....just slightly. Look at the difference in weights that result! So, a few hp can make a big difference, and that is what has happened with the E36.

It has been an overacheiver when it comes to making rear wheel power. Another car, which is at the top of the list, the 911, is the opposite. I own a 73 911E, and I can tell you that there aint no way to get that much more juice from that mechanicalyl injected flat 6. It will make a few more, but thats it. So that's reflected in how many we have seen built. An expensive build, for not much result, and it has to race against a car that puts DOWN 220 or so?? I think not, thankyou! And the reverse is true...we wouldn't have that many E36s running if the owners didn't think they were the car to have, would we?

The list shows, btw, how close things really are...a few HP either way and there are some big swings in the final number.

And, on that note, when the final number is very close, certain cars will do well at certain tracks, and vice versa. Isn't that all anyone can ask?

zracre

09-14-2005, 07:39 PM

some cars respond better to an IT build than others...the only way to open that can is to have someone build every car in the book to the letter of the rules...i highly doubt that will happen...if there is an obvious overdog then they should buy a motor from a respected builder of them and dyno that one...and that will lead to having to dyno every car.....or adjust the other way...lighter rx 7's z's preludes etc :119:

mlytle

09-14-2005, 09:43 PM

i heard 217
now i hear 220
do i hear 225? anyone?

the mythical e36 engine just keeps making more power. sheesh. i wish mine got within 25 of the original babble....before the restrictor (and the restrictor DID make a difference). none of the top 4 bmw's in the marrs series makes anywhere near the numbers being thrown about here. all are very competitive and one of them was a arrc contender last year. gimme a break.

let's get back to some real data somewhere. how about those track records that are mostly held by rx7's? how about the stellar qualifiying time laid down by an acura at summit over labor day? you can play with the car numbers all day, but what is the performance where the rubber actually hits the road...

unless we all go out and start racing srf's, there will never be equal parity between the cars. there will NEVER be a formula that classifys cars so that completely different setups will cross the finish line together. there will always be perception of some cars being slow and some cars being fast. if a car is percieved as slow from the get go, nobody will build it to the max and it WILL be slow. if something is percieved as having potential, lots of folks will build them to the hilt, tuners will florish and viola, the car gets fast and even more of them are built. self fulfilling prophecy.

the sailboat racers have been chasing this "parity through rules" pipedream for 200 years with no good results. because of this "one-design" boats, or "spec racers" in car parlance, are now the most popular form of sailboat racing. geee, no wonder formula mazda, spec miata, spec rx7, spec racer ford, etc. make up the majority of most fields.

hey, how about every car classed in IT be precisely spec'd as to what modifications can be made? we are damn near a "spec e36" anyway. there has been so much bmw development there is basically just a checklist of known parts to built a fast one. :bash_1_:

marshall

Banzai240

09-14-2005, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 15 2005, 01:43 AM
let's get back to some real data somewhere. how about those track records that are mostly held by rx7's?
60219

How about the Bimmerworld dyno sheets sent to the CRB by Mr. Shafer?? They show 195hp AT THE WHEELS... 18% for drivetrain losses, and that's 237 flywheel hp... That's real enough data... or at least it was to Mr. Shafer when he sent it into the CRB in an effort to disprove the ITAC's notions on this cars potential...

Also, the ITAC has been told that the top prepped BMWs are making 7 more hp WITH the restrictor... You just have to know how to fool the system into not "seeing" the restrictor... something not that hard to do...

I don't care if we EVER see a lap time on ANY of these cars... that's the point guys... We are dealing with the mechanical performance parameters of the car... We are trying to equate the PERFORMANCE POTENTIALS of all these IT cars... NOT the car + driver + track conditions + fuel used + weather + track length +..... That doesn't work...

Z3_GoCar

09-15-2005, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 02:51 PM
--Snip--
This being done, if there is hard evidence (multiple dyno data, etc.), that shows that the output of the car was over/underestimated, then adjustments may need to be made...

If you see a pattern here, then you are catching on... The idea is to classify based on the potential of the CAR, and leave the rest up to you... Race results have many factors involved with them, the cars "potential" being only one of them... They can be an indicator, but they alone do not prove/disprove the need for a change...

60186

So with very few or no examples running how do you tell if the inital setting was optomistic/pessimistic? Outside of race results how do judge chassie potential. I'm sure some cars that are classified require the builder to make everything, for example suspension bushings. Also, what has to be done to tune a chassie to be competitve is this also not part of the cars potential? I guess my main beef is the sort of chicken and egg problem associated with the less than common cars, no one races them because they're not competitve and they're not competitive because no one races them. So then how do you break the chain?

James

lateapex911

09-15-2005, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 15 2005, 12:57 AM
I guess my main beef is the sort of chicken and egg problem associated with the less than common cars, no one races them because they're not competitve and they're not competitive because no one races them. So then how do you break the chain?

James

60228

Well, some cars just aren't popular, and are considered uphill builds. To some, that's EXACTLY what they're looking for. They search for the oddball, the overlooked, the forgotten, the never before developed, so that they can be the first to walk the path and be the pioneer.

Guys like Jeff with his TR8, and his friend Ron with his Jensen, both strong contributers to this BBS.

Ron admits his is an uphill battle, but, he also sees considerable potential, and likes the light weight. Lots of eyes are watching, will this car be one of the contenders in ITS? He hopes so, and so do lots of champions of the underdog.

He just might be on to something, and if he is, he has done it...he's broken the chain......

Point being that there are lots of guys out there who know what the "right" cars are, but vote with their hearts and go other ways. If they are successful, suddenly the oddball becomes the overdog. When the E36 was first classed, I can remember hearing skeptical comments about the weight, and how is such a big car going to compete with cars like the 7 and the Z.......

Z3_GoCar

09-15-2005, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 08:31 PM
How about the Bimmerworld dyno sheets sent to the CRB by Mr. Shafer?? They show 195hp AT THE WHEELS... 18% for drivetrain losses, and that's 237 flywheel hp... That's real enough data... or at least it was to Mr. Shafer when he sent it into the CRB in an effort to disprove the ITAC's notions on this cars potential...

----Snip----

Acutally the flywheel hp may be more than that. I understand that BMW's may not be the most efficient in the drive train department. A friend of mine just dyno'ed his Z3 post DASC and used a fudge factor of 21% Or maybe it's just because we're using the atiquated e-30 rear suspension.

James

Z3_GoCar

09-15-2005, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 14 2005, 11:03 PM
Well, some cars just aren't popular, and are considered uphill builds. To some, that's EXACTLY what they're looking for. They search for the oddball, the overlooked, the forgotten, the never before developed, so that they can be the first to walk the path and be the pioneer.

......

Point being that there are lots of guys out there who know what the "right" cars are, but vote with their hearts and go other ways. If they are successful, suddenly the oddball becomes the overdog. When the E36 was first classed, I can remember hearing skeptical comments about the weight, and how is such a big car going to compete with cars like the 7 and the Z.......

60231

Some of us just like :bash_1_:

James

"Life IS pain!"
--The Dread Pirate Roberts

Catch22

09-15-2005, 02:54 AM

Well, I just can't stay out of it any longer.

Earlier this year, a BMW WITH restrictor plate smashed its own track record at Road Atlanta, In July, it was about 92 degrees.

I've seen what this car has at the wheels, and its a legal car. It has ALOT of money in it and its extremely well driven, but its legal. People think it isn't, but to date nobody has proved otherwise.

Now, I had an Integra GSR that was ITS prepped. Fully built OPM motor and tuned on the exact same dyno as the above mentioned BMW. The best we could do was 172hp at the wheels. Forget about torque... 129.
I'm not going to say what the BMW had, but I will say I deemed the Integra hopeless at that point and sold it to a Honda Challenge guy. The BEST that car will get, no matter how much money you throw at it, is about 180whp. Anything higher than that and you are cheating.
Make no mistake about it, 172whp from a 1994 Integra GSR is pretty stout, but its dog meat to a half-assed 325, forget about the *good* ones.

So... What do we do about it?
Well, its not easy, but here's what you do...

1. Add about 100lbs to the BMW and call it soup. Leave it alone after that and concentrate on letting the rest of the cars get faster instead of slowing the BMW down, because frankly, it isn't going to happen.
2. Reduce the weight on a couple of current cars. The RX7s are carrying ballast, sometimes alot, and so are the GSRs. There is no reason for the GSR, with no torque and Civic brakes to weigh close to 2700lbs. It needs to be about 100lbs less than that. The Preludes are too heavy too.
3. Look at classing some new cars. The Integra Type R comes to mind. Less than 200hp and short on torque. Don't be scared of this car, its just a slightly better GSR. At current GSR weight this car *might* be a match for the BMW at 2900+lbs.
The Celica GTS should be coming up soon as well.
4. Monitor and adjust accordingly.

Look guys, I watched Tom Fowler just plain drive the wheels off what is likely the worlds fastest ITS Prelude at Road Atlanta earlier this year. He was wringing that car out, and he's one hell of a driver. The end result... 1.5 seconds slower than the fastest BMW. Slower than several BMWs as a matter of fact, but on par with some RX7s and 240s.

My point, stop concentrating on slowing the BMW down and start pulling lead out of 4 or 5 other chassis in the class. It won't necessarily solve the problem, but it will certainly help. The BMW is there, for better or worse, and there's just no reason for RX7 and Integra drivers to be bolting 100lbs of lead in their cars when they are an underdog WITHOUT it.
I know its not as simple as it sounds, but you have to start somewhere.

BTW - I agree that the Lexus and Toyota products mentioned above are too much for ITS. Just because one cow is out of the barn doesn't mean the door should get propped open.

Bill Miller

09-15-2005, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 15 2005, 02:21 AM
Acutally the flywheel hp may be more than that. I understand that BMW's may not be the most efficient in the drive train department. A friend of mine just dyno'ed his Z3 post DASC and used a fudge factor of 21% Or maybe it's just because we're using the atiquated e-30 rear suspension.

James

60232

Interesting comment. Doing a little data analysis, and assuming that there's a 21% driveline loss, rather than the 18% that Darin suggested. That's another 10+ FHP (Flywheel HP). Or, looked at another way, a 30%+ increase over stock, in IT tune. And that's based on the 195 WHP number from the dyno sheets that Mr. Shafer sent in. That translates to ~247 FHP. If we use a CONSERVATIVE estimate of 210 WHP for a maxed-out car, that translates to over 265 FHP (using this same 21% loss factor, and over 256 FHP using Darin's number of 18%). That's a 35-40% FHP gain (depending on which driveline loss # you use) from an IT tune. THAT is a big gain, and it only gets bigger, if the cars are actually making more than 210 WHP.

But, I agree w/ Jake, it's not just about peak hp or peak torque, it's about the area under the curve. I think that you'd see a much more telling picture if you looked at say a 3500 - 4000 rpm range (say 4k - 7.5k, or 4k - 8k), and took the area under the HP and torque curves. Then, correlate those data to lap times on various types of tracks (twisty, "handling" tracks, as well as wide-open "horsepower" tracks). While it's just an academic excercise, I think it would be interesting.

As far as 'getting it right', out of the ITAC process, I'll say, w/ a faily high level of confidence, that it's probably closer than it is now. At the very least, if all the cars in the ITCS are 'run through' (which it's my understanding, is happening), everyone gets treated the same. If we're going to cotinue to cling to the 'no guarantee' concept, I don't think anyone can ask (or expect) more than that. It's objective, and pretty much what I've been advocating from the very earliest of discussion about a formula or process (even if it's just a simple lb/hp ratio). And cars like the E36 would probably still be ahead of the game, as I think a 35-40+% gain from an IT tune, is probably on the high side. I'm guessing 20-25% gain is more the norm. BTW, that would predict the E36 w/ the M50 motor at between about 225-235 FHP. And Mr. Shafer's number suggest that you're already on (or past) the high end w/ a "shopping cart" car.

Ron Earp

09-15-2005, 07:13 AM

What I find interesting, or I suppose I should say discouraging, is that there are folks who have the data that can put this rwhp issue to rest. There are two BMWs in the SE that are considerably faster than the rest of the field (have a look at the VIR results) and certainly lay down what I would consider benchmarks for the car. They are current SCCA racers and certainly have the data needed to make heads or tails of the hp potential of the 2.5 I6 in the BMW. But, they do not contribute. Perhaps they do not read here, but I'm certain that someone that knows them reads here and possibly has the information themselves.

I, along with probably many other car enthusaists that become SCCA racers, have owned an E36 BMW. And, having owned the car and driven a few others, I know that the weight of the car is not correct. Most cars in the class are within a few percent of their street weight. Hell, my own car appears to be classed higher than its street trim weight, but that is another story. How many cars are classed at 10-11% less than street trim? There might be a few, but certainly the car that is perceived as an overdog shound not have this weight classification. Class it at 3050lbs or so, remove the restrictor (didn't appear to do anything anyhow to the fast ones), and see how it does.

Ron

PS-Glad to see the IT board is back with some healthy discussion, I had to go over to sm.com for a bit to get my reading in, but I think I might be back!

zracre

09-15-2005, 07:27 AM

At the July Road Atlanta SARRC:

Qualifying:

ITS Chris Newberry 240SX 1:43.115
ITS Tony Burdette BMW 1:44.060
ITS Jeff Buice Bmw 1:44.634

Results:

ITS Jeff Buice BMW 1:43.535
ITS Chris Newberry 240SX 1:43.599
ITS Dan Shaver BMW 1:45.279

It was a great race but more than 50 percent of the field was a 325...there are just lots of good developed cars out there...

Bruce Shafer

09-15-2005, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 03:31 PM

You guys want to know why SM is SOOO much faster than it appears it should be??? Because there are HUNDREDS of them out there tweaking, tuning, adjusting, and then SHARING that information with each other... finding the EXACT correct tire pressures, the EXACT right caster/camber combo, etc., etc.... The same might be said about the CRX... Lot's of them out there, usually driven by friendly guys who talk to each other...

The only thing that can be justified in your post is that there is the large number of Spec Miata’s and the progress they have made. There is now a large number of E36’s, several really good development programs, and an abundance of really good go-fast parts. And this might be a shocker, we BMW drivers do share setup information.

If you run the numbers on the RX-7, both theoretical and actual dyno numbers, you'd find that it's classified as the process defines. The same is true of the 240Z. The 944 is too heavy... The 944S is a bit too light... The 240SX is close, but will require an 10/10ths effort to make that weight... Several cars are overweight at this point, some are slightly underweight at this point... Some are in the wrong class all-together... The same pattern exists in all the classes...

Interesting that the members of the ITAC all consider there cars to be classified about right. Andy - RX7; Darren - 240 SX. Might be time for a little more diversity on the ITAC?

Bill Miller

09-15-2005, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 15 2005, 09:05 AM

Interesting that the members of the ITAC all consider there cars to be classified about right. Andy - RX7; Darren - 240 SX. Might be time for a little more diversity on the ITAC?

60246

You know Bruce, I may not agree w/ those guys all the time, but the last thing that I would think, is that they're using their positions to promote their own cars, or hold a competitor's car back. That was a really low-class comment. :angry: You obviously have lost whatever objectivity that you had in this matter.

BTW, I think Andy runs a SM now.

Bruce Shafer

09-15-2005, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 15 2005, 09:26 AM
You know Bruce, I may not agree w/ those guys all the time, but the last thing that I would think, is that they're using their positions to promote their own cars, or hold a competitor's car back. That was a really low-class comment. :angry: You obviously have lost whatever objectivity that you had in this matter.

BTW, I think Andy runs a SM now.

60248

Bill, too bad that is the way you percieve it. Just calling it like I see it.

I've never been objective when it comes to this topic.

If Andy is no longer driving an RX7, when did he quite being an advocate for the car?

Edit to add a few more comments! :bash_1_:

Knestis

09-15-2005, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 15 2005, 01:43 AM
... if a car is percieved as slow from the get go, nobody will build it to the max and it WILL be slow. if something is percieved as having potential, lots of folks will build them to the hilt, tuners will florish and viola, the car gets fast and even more of them are built. self fulfilling prophecy. ...

I can't believe that we are having this conversation again but Marshall does bring up a point that hasn't had the attention that it deserve in past re-hashing of the arguments.

K

Banzai240

09-15-2005, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 15 2005, 01:45 PM
Just calling it like I see it.

60250

You obviously need glasses...

If you had actually understood what I've been saying... I wouldn't have to say the following again... the class is DEFINED by the cars mentioned in that post, which means, by default, they are going to be "classified correctly"... of course they "fit"... And, every car that has been adjusted or classified since is going to "fit"... the 240Z and the RX-7 WERE the best examples of the class... right up until the BMW E36 was classified... The VAST MAJORITY of the cars in the class are either close, or could be made to be close, from a wt/hp ratio and classification process perspective, to these two cars... It would be very difficult, it no impossible, however, to define the class in terms of the BMW and equate everyone else to that... It's about 1.3 to 1.5 wt/pwr points better than anything else in the class at it's current weight. You just can't make all these other cars that light. So, the obvious alternative is to bring the cars below up to the line, and the cars above back down to the line...

Let me put this in as simple a form as I can so you'll hopefully understand... The 240Z and the RX-7 were chosen as the representative cars in the class. Their parameters were analyzed, and their competition potential was determined... Since there are many of them, and they have been around awhile, and there is lot's of data on them, we think we have a good handle on what they are capable of.

A target wt/pwr ratio was determined based on these cars. Adders are used to adjust for the differences in brakes, gear ratios, suspension, etc... The classification process is based on these numbers...

THEREFORE, these cars "fit" because the process was borne USING THEIR SPECS... SAVVY??? :rolleyes:

Looking at the rest of the class... some cars are below the line, and a few are above...

You happen to fall in the later catagory... deal with that as you will...

And, for the record, the ONLY two times the 240SX has even been talked about on the ITAC, in any kind of official sense, was once because the brake specs were listed wrong (no 240SX ever came with 295mm front brakes...), and recently when we looked at all the cars in the class and analyzed their classification specs vs. the process... You talk to ANYONE on the ITAC or the CRB and they'll tell you that I am ADAMANT about abstaining from any official discussion concerning this particular car, specifically because I DO own one and I don't want the credibility of the ITAC questioned because of a conflict of interest...

Andy is the same way, as is the rest of the group... The only thing Andy has ever done concerning the RX-7 is given us as real-world performance data from the best preparred RX-7s in the country. (would be nice if everyone were as willing to give honest information... )

Nice try, though... :023:

Catch22

09-15-2005, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by zracre@Sep 15 2005, 11:27 AM
At the July Road Atlanta SARRC:

Qualifying:

ITS Chris Newberry 240SX 1:43.115
ITS Tony Burdette BMW 1:44.060
ITS Jeff Buice Bmw 1:44.634
Results:

ITS Jeff Buice BMW 1:43.535
ITS Chris Newberry 240SX 1:43.599
ITS Dan Shaver BMW 1:45.279

Thats from the SARRC race. The fast guys were in the Pro-IT.
Check the Pro IT results and you'll see BMW times in the 1:40s and some ITA times nearly as fast as the ITS times you posted above.

Fowler ran high 1:41s that same weekend in the ECR in his Prelude. Would have easily won him the SARRC race.

You can't pick and choose data and call something a good race. I had a race at VIR earlier this year where I damned near lapped up to 2nd place in my class by the time the checkered had flown. Does that mean my car needs to be moved to ITA? No, it means none of the fast guys showed up.

Garbage in, Garbage out.

BTW - I don't drive an ITS car and never will. Too expensive for me to enjoy it. But I do think the classing is all messed up and is killing a bunch of otherwise good cars at the expense of one very expensive to buy/build/run Overdog. Thats bad news for all of us, and it needs to be fixed.
JMO.

Bill Miller

09-15-2005, 10:37 AM

Ron Earp

09-15-2005, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 15 2005, 02:37 PM
you haven't noticed, the only people that DON'T think the E36 is too light, are the folks that are running them.

60255

I'm not running one, you are right. But still, I say again:

"I, along with probably many other car enthusaists that become SCCA racers, have owned an E36 BMW. And, having owned the car and driven a few others, I know that the weight of the car is not correct. Most cars in the class are within a few percent of their street weight. Hell, my own car appears to be classed higher than its street trim weight, but that is another story. How many cars are classed at 10-11% less than street trim? There might be a few, but certainly the car that is perceived as an overdog shound not have this weight classification. Class it at 3050lbs or so, remove the restrictor (didn't appear to do anything anyhow to the fast ones), and see how it does."

Ron

JeffYoung

09-15-2005, 11:43 AM

Ditto what Ron said. Would a BMW driver please justify the 2850 weight for the car? It is just flat out wrong.

Jake, thanks for the kind words above. By the way, Dr. Earp has ventured over into enemy territory (SM) while we sort the Jensen, only to find out that SMs can be as problematic as our rusty, leaky old Brit cars.....or maybe it is just us......are you coming down for the ARRC this year? Like Kirk I may come spectate...might even race, we'll see.

Bruce Shafer

09-15-2005, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 15 2005, 10:30 AM
You obviously need glasses...

If you had actually understood what I've been saying... I wouldn't have to say the following again...

Do you find if frustrating that the argument you used to justify the increased performance of the Spec Miata was used to explain one of the many reasons the E36 has evolved into the “omnipotent” machine that is has? That was the extent of the entire first paragraph of my first post this morning.

My suggestion that the ITAC needs more diversity appears to have been overlooked. I'll be the second person on this thread to ask how and where does one sign up for the ITAC?

chuck baader

09-15-2005, 12:17 PM

If I understand the jist of this thread correctly, most are of the opinion that the e36 is under weight. Look at some facts. The SpeedSource RX7s were dominate until SpeedSource quit developing them....5 years ago? The 240Z dominated until 4 years ago? when development basically ended?(and by the way, I think Chett's old blue/orange car is still faster than his e36....IN HIS HANDS!!) So we have a couple of extremely capable drivers that could take any of our cars and run considerably quicker than we could....would that make our cars underweight? 99% of us that race cannot drive our cars to their maximun potential, but you want to slow all the cars because there are a couple that spend the time and money and happen to be able to outdrive us? I don't think that fair either. If the ITAC is going to do anything, I think it should be to look at average cars...which most are...and disregard the few over and under the curve. :bash_1_:

An interesting side about the lap times posted for the July RA SARRC. About 4 years ago, when I started racing, Tony Burdett was turning those same lap times in his e30 325!! The RX7s and 240Zs were about 2-3 seconds quicker. Chuck

JeffYoung

09-15-2005, 12:40 PM

Chuck, good points, BUT -- I don't think results should have much if anything to do with "correct" weight. The E36 is underweight compared to all other contender cars in view of its curbweight. That is the issue with it for me, not the horsepower.

BTW, Chet was 3 seconds faster in the E36 at VIR than in the Z.

On a more pleasant note, you running NASA at Roebling in two weeks? Since my SIC waiver was turned down, I'm thinking of taking the NASA plunge.....would be good to see one of the SCCA regulars down there.

Catch22

09-15-2005, 01:13 PM

I don't know where some of you guys get this stuff.

Chet is now about 1.5 seconds faster at Road Atlanta than he was in his 240. And 2:12s at VIR is just ungodly. The next nearest non-E36 is over 2 seconds behind that (RX7) and the fastest an Integra GSR has ever gone there is 4 seconds slower than that. These are fully prepped cars that are well driven, the only thing I personally ever use when making comparisons.

No other IT class has a single chassis that is this obviously dominant. Not even close.

lateapex911

09-15-2005, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 15 2005, 09:45 AM
Bill, too bad that is the way you percieve it. Just calling it like I see it.

I've never been objective when it comes to this topic.

If Andy is no longer driving an RX7, when did he quite being an advocate for the car?

Edit to add a few more comments! :bash_1_:

60250

Bruce I will continue to discuss this in a manner that is as uncolored as I can, but you should know that you have really removed yourself from any semblence of a "reasonable" debater, as your bias, and disregard for others legitimate views has shown your interest to be entirely self centered.

What then is amazing, is that you are a person who has admitted to be self serving, but then you accuse others, on the ITAC, of that exact failure!! Why is it fine for you, but not for them??

THEN you say you want to be ON the ITAC! Am I the only person who see this obvious conflict??

The ITAC is made up of 9 members, selected, (key word, selected) for their involvement in IT, their geographic diversity, and their class diversity.
As such, the board remains rather unbiased, as one person would have a very difficult time forwarding any personal agendas.

I will let Darin fill you in on other aspects of the selection process, but I would assume that an ability to act in a non self serving manner would be important....

Banzai240

09-15-2005, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 15 2005, 04:17 PM
If the ITAC is going to do anything, I think it should be to look at average cars...which most are...and disregard the few over and under the curve. :bash_1_:

60274

Again... you guys keep trying to work with track data, racing programs, and on-track performance...

Sorry, but that's completely missing the point... again...

The "average" car indicates you are considering prep level and on-track performance... THAT really has LITTLE to do with the ITACs position that the E36, like MANY other cars (Porches, Mazdas, Nissans, Toyotas, etc...), needs to be adjusted to correctly fit in this class within the performance envolope that the ITACs classificaion process has defined for the class. The E36 exceeds this envolope, based on this process, and backed by real data... In contrast, the 240Z fits the process, as does the RX-7... The 944 falls short, the 944S exceeds it slightly, most all of the Toyotas fall short... Many Nissans do as well... right there with them is the 1st get 13B RX-7... The list goes on...

This entire discussion, though it's disolved into another bitch session about the E36 drivers (E36 drivers vs. the World, or so it would seem), there really is no singling out of this one car... It just happens to be a prime example of a much larger problem...

THEORY:
Based on the MECHANICAL PARAMETERS of the car in question, in comparison to the MECHANICAL PARAMETERS of the other cars in the class, and specifically the "control" cars, the car is considerably under weight.

DATA:
This is said without regard to what we know about it's actual performance and real-world output figures... We "Know" what these cars really put out, as well as how the best examples really perform on the track...

I don't know how much more objective you want me to be... When your theory is backed up by validating evidence, it pretty much becomes fact... You'll notice (or maybe not), that I didn't mention the BMW ONCE in the above two paragraphs... That's because these statements can apply to ANY car in IT... There is no descrimination or bias... If the car doesn't fit, then we need to do something about it...

That's our plan...

chuck baader

09-15-2005, 02:08 PM

Jeff, won't be able to make it....assembling motor.....again!

Scott...I believe Chet's record was a 1:40+++. He has gone slightly quicker, but not under 1:40!

Darin...Point taken...I think a lot of frustration setms from not knowing the parameters and being told we must blindly accept what is given to us by the ATAC. On paper, to me, the Z has a better hp/wt ratio and probably the 7, also. They are both 4-500 pounds lighter and should carry more corner speed yet the subject is how the e36 is outside the parameters. Chuck

Doc Bro

09-15-2005, 02:45 PM

No other IT class has a single chassis that is this obviously dominant. Not even close.

I don't know about that one. I'm not sure if I've seen any e36 BMW's win in the races I've been to in the NER this year. A lot of seconds I'll agree....mostly 7's winning. I've also seen an enormous amouont of winning in the ITA Acura's, some have qualified faster than the ITS cars (7/4/05 LRP).FWIW
Rob

Knestis

09-15-2005, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 15 2005, 05:44 PM
... Based on the MECHANICAL PARAMETERS of the car in question, in comparison to the MECHANICAL PARAMETERS of the other cars in the class, and specifically the "control" cars, the car is considerably under weight. ...

I can't tell you how much I enjoy seeing this in print, representing a way of thinking for the ITAC that would have been completely impossible just a couple of years ago.

Hooray!

K

Ron Earp

09-15-2005, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 15 2005, 06:08 PM
Darin...Point taken...I think a lot of frustration setms from not knowing the parameters and being told we must blindly accept what is given to us by the ATAC. On paper, to me, the Z has a better hp/wt ratio and probably the 7, also. They are both 4-500 pounds lighter and should carry more corner speed yet the subject is how the e36 is outside the parameters. Chuck

60285

May be, but the BMW is still fast. One thing I feel that is fairly inappropriate to calculate on is peak hp vs. weight. A Z and especially a wankel might make reasonable peak hp, but they'll never have the hp curve and more importantly, the torque curve of the BMW. Take a wankel at 200 rwhp vs. a 2.5L, 4 valve, variable valve timing, inline 6 at 200 rwhp in the same weight chassis and I'll put my money on the 2.5L, 4 valve, variable valve timing, inline 6.

Add about 200lbs to the inline 6 chassis or so and I'll bet they'd be close. Hey, didn't someone say that?

My Lightning truck only has around 380 rwhp and weighs over 4600lbs, but the torque curve of that motor makes it faster than what you'd calculate on peak hp. I think a little bit of what might be seen here with the comparisons of BMWs with RX7s and Zs is somewhat similar. Might be the board takes this into account, I'm just thinking out loud.

R

Z3_GoCar

09-15-2005, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 15 2005, 10:44 AM

THEORY:
Based on the MECHANICAL PARAMETERS of the car in question, in comparison to the MECHANICAL PARAMETERS of the other cars in the class, and specifically the "control" cars, the car is considerably under weight.

DATA:
This is said without regard to what we know about it's actual performance and real-world output figures... We "Know" what these cars really put out, as well as how the best examples really perform on the track...

Theory and data is all well and good, but what do you do when you don't have the data to back up the theory? In other words where do you get the data? Especially when there are few to none to prove that it's been over weighted? Doesn't development factor into the potential side of things? You say the e-36 is way under weight, well I say who's running one? I've asked in the BMW list who's running a e-36 and haven't recieved a responce from anyone other than two e-36/7's in NER. The problem in ITS is with one particular e-36, but what about the ITA e-36? Isn't part of the potential wrapped up with development? What if you can't find the .04 over pistons? The ARP rod bolts, head bolts. No one's doing the flow development on the head? (for port matching of course). Do you blase a new course and pay Bimmerworld/VAC to chart new territory, or do you just go with a reman stock motor? Will you even get Bimmerworld to do anything if they don't think you've got a snow ball's chance of making more than mid-pack?

On a side note, ask a spec miata driver what exacly is done to a Sunbelt/et. al. motor. They don't know, they don't want to know as long as it's all stock parts. Yet for some strange reason they can get more power out of them than any from the factory. Their not allowed expansion chaimbers, yet their exhaust has a strange section where it flares out into a larger tube. If you're in the top 10 you're running something like that out here, it's just the price of admission.

James

Bruce Shafer

09-15-2005, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 15 2005, 01:38 PM
Bruce I will continue to discuss this in a manner that is as uncolored as I can, but you should know that you have really removed yourself from any semblence of a "reasonable" debater, as your bias, and disregard for others legitimate views has shown your interest to be entirely self centered.

What then is amazing, is that you are a person who has admitted to be self serving, but then you accuse others, on the ITAC, of that exact failure!! Why is it fine for you, but not for them??

I have admitted a bias to this particular topic, other than that I’m a pretty objective guy. Do you have information to prove this is not the case? Too bad others can’t get their biases out in the open. To a truly objective person the bias of a lot of participants on this forum against the E36 and a few other items is quite obvious. I don’t particularly enjoy coming on here and defending the E36, but there is so much baloney being passed off as fact, I can’t sit back and let it go all the time. From time to time those spewing crap are going to get called on it.

THEN you say you want to be ON the ITAC! Am I the only person who see this obvious conflict??

That was a rhetorical question, no where did I say I wanted to be on the ITAC (although I may entertain the idea). I asked the question again because it had gone unanswered once previous in this thread. When certain myths are dispelled, tough questions are asked, or a post really hits home it tends to get ignored when it goes against the conventional wisdom of this forum.

The ITAC is made up of 9 members, selected, (key word, selected) for their involvement in IT, their geographic diversity, and their class diversity.
As such, the board remains rather unbiased, as one person would have a very difficult time forwarding any personal agendas.

And whom makes the selection? Do they have to be members of this forum? How many BMW drivers from the Southeast are on the committee at present?

Since a majority of ITAC members post on this forum it is easy to get the impression that all members are marching in lockstep. It would be nice to get the indication that there may be some differing opinions among the members.

I will let Darin fill you in on other aspects of the selection process, but I would assume that an ability to act in a non self serving manner would be important....

How did you get selected? ;) [jk]

Bill Miller

09-15-2005, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Sep 15 2005, 02:55 PM
I can't tell you how much I enjoy seeing this in print, representing a way of thinking for the ITAC that would have been completely impossible just a couple of years ago.

Hooray!

K

60289

+1

Banzai240

09-15-2005, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 15 2005, 07:13 PM
Theory and data is all well and good, but what do you do when you don't have the data to back up the theory? In other words where do you get the data?
60291

Well... doing that is the trick now, isn't it... Basically, You do the best you can with what you have to work with... Then, when new data becomes available that warrents another look, you adjust if necessary... Hopefully, not too often, if ever, but the tools are there should they be needed (that was what we worked on last year...)

We aren't trying to make this perfect... You'd have to be able to KNOW or estimate the output potential to the nearest HP to do that, amongst other things... What we are trying to do is make the system BETTER, the process repeatable and fair, and make it so one can have a healthy discussion about classifications should questions arrise...

You ask me "why is this car classified at this weight"... If it's one we have worked with, I can tell you pretty much exactly how it came to be classified there...

We do consider torque, suspension, etc., but those are things that factor in AFTER the base weight is established... the "Adders" as Bill coined them... Those are subjective... they have to be, because we aren't the FIA and not working with F1 resources and engineers...

Again, it's not perfect, but we do feel that it is GOOD, and that's a hell of a lot better way than just guessing at a weight...

Banzai240

09-15-2005, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 15 2005, 07:20 PM
How many BMW drivers from the Southeast are on the committee at present?

60292

And just WHAT difference do you think that would make??? There was a prominant BMW competitor ON the CRB when the ITAC recommended that the weight be corrected for the E36... It was his advice to the CRB that got the restrictor implemented instead... Where did THAT get us??? The ITAC was completely skeptical about whether or not this would work, and we remain so today... Apparently for good reason...

This is a VERY diverse group, and we discuss things in as much, and likely MORE detail than things are ever discussed here, so there are really NO recommendations that are made lightly...

In this case, Mr. Shafer, you are simply off base... The E36 has been an issue since it's initial classification, and it remains so today... It, and several other cars, need to be brought in-line with the performance parameters of the class if this classification process is to have any validity and if the recent classifications/adjustments are going to be valid as well...

JeffYoung

09-15-2005, 04:00 PM

So if I am reading this right, a BMW driver on the CRB essentially was responsible for rejecting the ITAC recommendation that the BMW weight be corrected, and instead got the CRB to use the restrictor (which is as antithetical to IT philosophy)?

Interesting.

Like I said, I like the E36, want it out there. Let it make whatever power can be made out of 2.5 liters. But please correct the weight, which is just plain wrong.

Bill Miller

09-15-2005, 04:18 PM

Since a majority of ITAC members post on this forum it is easy to get the impression that all members are marching in lockstep. It would be nice to get the indication that there may be some differing opinions among the members.

I don't think that's an accurate statement. You've got Darin, Andy, and Jake G. that post here regularly. George used to, but I haven't seen him in a while. Other than those 4, I can't remember ANY of the other ITAC members posting on a regular basis. Last I looked, 4 was not a majority out of 9.

Catch22

09-15-2005, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 15 2005, 06:08 PM
Scott...I believe Chet's record was a 1:40+++. He has gone slightly quicker, but not under 1:40!

I'm pretty sure he was in the mid 41s in the 240. I think E36s are the only S cars to ever be under 1:41 at Road Atlanta, and in July Chet ran a 1:40 flat.
And there are those that will tell you that he isn't even pushing the car because he doesn't have to. No one is challenging him.
Take the 2:12s at VIR for example. That was done when another E36 was also running times that insanely low. Before that, nobody had been under a 2:14.

My point is that I'm pretty sure there are several E36s out there than can go under 1:40 at Road Atlanta if you get them out there chasing each other, and thats too damned fast. No other chassis is managing to get under 1:41 regardless of the prep and the driver.

I don't know about that one. I'm not sure if I've seen any e36 BMW's win in the races I've been to in the NER this year. A lot of seconds I'll agree....mostly 7's winning. I've also seen an enormous amouont of winning in the ITA Acura's, some have qualified faster than the ITS cars

Maybe you guys don't have the best drivers in the E36 (yet)? Maybe Lime Rock Specifically favors the 7s? And your ITA guy in the Integra is pretty much a world beater, so alot of that is driver.

Just 2 years ago a CRX won ITA at the ARRC with several Integras chasing it. That car didn't run last year or it likely still would have been top 3.
ITA is still a pretty open class most days. If you have an Integra, CRX, Civic, 240sx, or a Miata you have a legit shot.
In ITS, at least in my part of the world, you need an E36 or fuggetaboutit.

JeffYoung

09-15-2005, 04:36 PM

Scott makes a good point. I think we still haven't seen anywhere near what the E36 can do.

I watched (after I broke my motor during qual) Chet run away from very good RX7s and BMWs at SARRC MARRS at VIR in May. I also know that he strecthed out a 20 second (!) lead on one of the best prepped and driven RX7s in the SEDiv (one that ran neck and neck with Nick Leverone in March at VIR) and then throttled back, took it easy and I watched his lap times go up 3-4 seconds on the clock.

Put another fast BMW out there on his tail and NO one would have been within half a lap of him on a 4 mile course in a 30 minute race.

Bruce Shafer

09-15-2005, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 15 2005, 04:18 PM
I don't think that's an accurate statement. You've got Darin, Andy, and Jake G. that post here regularly. George used to, but I haven't seen him in a while. Other than those 4, I can't remember ANY of the other ITAC members posting on a regular basis. Last I looked, 4 was not a majority out of 9.

60307

Didn't Chris Albin post on this forum? If not then I guess I'm busted! :figo:

Catch22

09-15-2005, 04:43 PM

Looking over some past ITS Road Atlanta results I can't find ANY car with ANY driver under a 1:41 in ITS. Not even Chet in his old 240.

E36s only have breathed that air, and my money says they can go faster. If they can be 2 whole seconds faster than everyone else at VIR, then why not a very similar track like R.A.?
I'm betting, if the weather is good and the competition (like York) shows up, you'll see E36s in the 39s at this years ARRC. If one can run a 40 flat in July... well... 39s should be cake in November.

Ron Earp

09-15-2005, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 15 2005, 07:44 PM
And just WHAT difference do you think that would make??? There was a prominant BMW competitor ON the CRB when the ITAC recommended that the weight be corrected for the E36... It was his advice to the CRB that got the restrictor implemented instead... Where did THAT get us??? The ITAC was completely skeptical about whether or not this would work, and we remain so today... Apparently for good reason...

Who is on the CRB? And what prominant competitor put down the recommendation from the ITAC? Seems to me there is a conflict of interest there for sure.

Ron

Z3_GoCar

09-15-2005, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 15 2005, 12:30 PM

You ask me "why is this car classified at this weight"... If it's one we have worked with, I can tell you pretty much exactly how it came to be classified there...

Thank you Darin, you're posts have been mosts illuminating. If you would please then, have you looked at the 91-94 e-36 318 speced at 3840lbs? I also suspect that the other 318's are a little on the chubb side. Two preludes five hp difference with the same weight, vs. two BMW's two hp difference with 75 lbs weight difference? I'm refering to the 96-99 318ti and the Z3 with the same motor and different exhaust's. I look forward to you sheading light on this, thanks.

James

mlytle

09-15-2005, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 15 2005, 08:36 PM
Scott makes a good point. I think we still haven't seen anywhere near what the E36 can do.

I watched (after I broke my motor during qual) Chet run away from very good RX7s and BMWs at SARRC MARRS at VIR in May. I also know that he strecthed out a 20 second (!) lead on one of the best prepped and driven RX7s in the SEDiv (one that ran neck and neck with Nick Leverone in March at VIR) and then throttled back, took it easy and I watched his lap times go up 3-4 seconds on the clock.

60310

i was one of those other bmw's at vir for the sarrc/marrs. besides chet, none of the rest of us bmw's that finished were even close to keeping up with that rx7...

one of the bmw's that broke qualified a tick faster than chet, and i know the hp output of that car is nowhere near the inflated crap numbers being thrown around in this forum.

ra and vir keep gettting brought up as example of how dominant the bmw is. lets hear more about the tracks in the northeast that are dominated by rx7's.

JeffYoung

09-15-2005, 05:40 PM

Marshall, I know your car. Ed York was close to Chet.

Steve Echerich's car is fast and legal and he's a nice guy. But Chet had him hands down.

Bottom line though is I don't really care about results, or about the hp numbers (although I think you guys are fooling yourselves if you don't believe that there are BMWs out there with 240 or so at the crank).

Bottom line is I would like an E36 driver to PLEASE JUSTIFY THE 2850 WEIGHT. I've asked, Ron's asked and Darrin has talked about it 5-6 times in this thread and all we get back is grousing about E36s being picked on and how hp numbers are wrong and how RX7s still dominate here and there.

So, and not trying to be rude, will an E36 driver please tell me why their car is classed at 2850 when the curb weight was over (and probably well over) 3000 lbs?

Banzai240

09-15-2005, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 15 2005, 08:00 PM
So if I am reading this right, a BMW driver on the CRB essentially was responsible for rejecting the ITAC recommendation that the BMW weight be corrected, and instead got the CRB to use the restrictor (which is as antithetical to IT philosophy)?

60302

That's really not what I said...

I said it was on his recommendation that the restrictor got implemented. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that he was consulted about the implentation...

The CRB was not comfortable adding that much weight to this car, and wanted to go with a restrictor instead. The ITAC recommendation was to go with weight. We agreed to entertain the restrictor idea, however, our official position remained to increase the weight, because we were ALL skeptical as to the effectiveness of these restrictors. Since other similiar BMWs were required to run restrictors, the expertise of this individual was used to determine the size and there you go...

I'm not sure I'd characterize this as the CRB "rejecting" a recomendation... They just had a different idea of how to accomplish the same desired outcome... and hopefully without the repercussions that adding 250+ lbs to the car would certainly create...

It just happens that this time, it didn't work... That doesn't make their work "wrong"... In fact, I think they should be commended for attempting to do something to help correct the classification...

My point was that JUST because a make is represented, that doesn't guarantee a perfect outcome... Using a restrictor like this (flat plate) is a real guessing game (which is why the ITAC didn't like the idea in general), and this time the information about it's effectiveness, well, it's not very effective...

NOW, when the CRB starts talking about using SIRs (Single Inlet Retrictors) instead... I'm all ears, because these appear to do exactly what you want them too... namely, they remain basically unseen by the motor until it reaches the point where you want it to stop making power... Check out what they are doing in GT with these...

Bruce Shafer

09-15-2005, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Young@Sep 15 2005, 05:30 PM
So, and not trying to be rude, will an E36 driver please tell me why their car is classed at 2850 when the curb weight was over (and probably well over) 3000 lbs?

Jeff, the reason nobody will post anything about the weight of the E36 is because no matter what is posted, it will be shrugged off as just plain wrong, incorrect source, or approached with complete denial since it doesn’t jive with the conventional wisdom of this forum. There is not much on the web these days since these cars are getting older, but here goes anyway…

92-96 E36 – 2866 lbs

[http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2117/act/usedcarreviewspecs/]

Edit to insert the correct quote from Jeff Young...

Z3_GoCar

09-15-2005, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by cbuzzetti@Sep 14 2005, 05:08 PM
In the San Fran Region the ITA class is owned by (of all things) a 1st gen RX7.
The driver is capable and has raced these cars for many years.
Pevious to that the RX3 dominated for many years.
The current ITA class at SFR is huge (25+ cars) with many SM and purpose built ITA Miata's. Some are as fast as the 1st gen 7. Yes there are a few Honda's and Acura's also.
Is the 1st gen a tweener? Doesn't appear so. This group has many good drivers.
But the 1st gen still wins. And has multiple championships.
Maybe alot of the 1st gens running ITA are not prepped to the maximum level.
Keep in mind this is the largest region in the nation. Typical double regional weekends have 350-500 entries. 50-60 SM and 25+ ITA. Alot of the drivers run multiple classes.
Check out race results here.
http://www.sfrscca.org/Results/index.html

See ya at turn one!!

Charles Buzzetti
ITS RX7 #78

60204

Maybe at the house that Mazda built :)

James

JeffYoung

09-15-2005, 06:17 PM

Darin, thanks for the clarification. That makes sense.

Dan, the number from BMWCCA club racing's site (I can't post the link right now, will do so later) lists the factory weight for the E36 325 to be 3087. I think your link is to a consumer page and, while I know what your response will be, it is wrong.

3087 is what BMWCCA says it came from teh factory at; hard to argue with that source and that is the number I've heard for a long time. I've seen higher numbers, but agree they are wrong.

Ron Earp

09-15-2005, 06:34 PM

Or some weights here:
http://www.repairmanual.com/catalog/GBM3

which has the 325i at 3100lbs.

Or here:
http://www.modernracer.com/features/bmw325i1992.html

which has the 325i at 3087-3164 lbs.

Or here:
http://digest.net/bmw/archive/v8/msg08502.html
which indicates E30s at 2800lbs, E36s > 3000

And of course Road and Track, Car and Driver which road tests showed the car weighing betweem 3090 to 3205 lbs depending.

Ron

JeffYoung

09-15-2005, 07:29 PM

Here is the link to the BMWCCA rules page listing the factory weight of most E36 325ises at 3087. Scroll down and click on "Table."

http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com/static/200...ies/05start.htm (http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com/static/2005Series/05start.htm)

So, let's try it again. Why is the car classed at 2850?

Bill Miller

09-15-2005, 07:56 PM

Bruce,

Yes, Chris Albin has posted here (so has Lee Grasser), but IIRC, Chris has posted using his wife's account. So have the 'majority' of the ITAC posted here, at one time or another? Yes. Does the 'majority' post here on a regular basis? Don't think so.

And, is it possible that that 2866# weight is for the E36 318?

As far as 'outrageous' hp figures, your 195 WHP translates to 240+ FHP, assuming a 20% driveline loss. And you've admited that you've left some ponies on the table. So I don't see how anyone can say they're surprised by an E36 325 making on the North side of 240hp at the flywheel.

JeffYoung

09-15-2005, 08:03 PM

Bill, excellent point and confirmed by the BMWCCA table. The 2867 number is for the 1992 318is.

Andy Bettencourt

09-15-2005, 08:09 PM

I would LOVE to tell you about the Northeastern tracks "Dominated" by RX-7's.

It's a team car that is 10/10th's and driven to the extreme. It has 1 BMW that it races against - a 2nd year driver with a stock motor and 100+ lbs overweight. The rest of the cars now are RX-7's with a smatering of other stuff thrown in. 90% Mazda's for sure.

In 2004, this same car LOST the NARRC championship to a BMW and should have come in 3rd only due to a crash at the Runoofs (Jeff). A BMW (Rob) that was driven to the extreme but NOT developed 100% took the money. No MOTEC-type system. Those guys sold the cars and tried to get 2 E46 323's done for this year and HAVE YET to hit the track...so of the 3 cars that were the top dogs last year...only one is on track this year and it's an RX-7. Simple math really.

Our team car that holds 5 track records hasn't seen a top BMW. York's enduro car doesn't have the power, Kip's car is gone and Ron and Jeff havent run all year. Hello? The new TR we set at Pocono was only 4/10th's better than Kip in his new 944's in it's SECOND RACE with clutch issues.

There is no prejudice here. Cripes, I am on the Spec Miata committee as well and voted to OUTLAW a lightweight clutch set-up people were developing...and I HAVE ONE IN MY CAR!!! It's about what is better for the greater good.

Other classes are being looked at. The BMW just happens to need some 'help' so it doesn't ruin ITS. WIthout the RP, you would need to have a BMW to win if you had even a reasonable example that was well driven in your area. Sorry, but those are the facts as I see them.

I can be contacted anytime to discuss my personal position on any issue.

508-878-2228. I'll tell you like I see it.

AB

Ron Earp

09-15-2005, 08:43 PM

Good points Andy. <hijack on>As an aside note, I wish you and others could have knocked that light clutch out. As it stands, you've got to have one to be in the running and that lightened my wallet by $550 plus another $300 or so if I don't install it myself. All so that everyone can enjoy the couple of 1/10ths it adds to laptimes that wouldn't matter one iota if everyone didn't have it. <hijack off>

mlytle

09-15-2005, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 15 2005, 09:40 PM
Marshall, I know your car. Ed York was close to Chet.

Steve Echerich's car is fast and legal and he's a nice guy. But Chet had him hands down.

Bottom line though is I don't really care about results, or about the hp numbers (although I think you guys are fooling yourselves if you don't believe that there are BMWs out there with 240 or so at the crank).

Bottom line is I would like an E36 driver to PLEASE JUSTIFY THE 2850 WEIGHT. I've asked, Ron's asked and Darrin has talked about it 5-6 times in this thread and all we get back is grousing about E36s being picked on and how hp numbers are wrong and how RX7s still dominate here and there.

So, and not trying to be rude, will an E36 driver please tell me why their car is classed at 2850 when the curb weight was over (and probably well over) 3000 lbs?

60317

yup, ed was close to chet...faster even...except he didn't finish either race. and i will say again...his engine isn't putting out anywhere near the inflated numbers flying around here. now even the crank numbers are getting bid up. who came up with a 20% driveline loss? is there any shred of evidence to back that up? i doubt it. sure would be cool if my 2.5l it trim engine put out as much hp as my 3.2l m3 engine!

steve did seem like a nice guy! and i really like his choice in car colors! :023:

you don't care about results jeff? in the end, isn't that what this is all about?

why keep asking the e36 drivers why it was classed where it is? we didn't classify it or set the weight. i have no idea how any its car is classified...some mythical formula known only to an inner circle? evidently there appears to be some performance envelope now that a bunch of cars are under or over..not just the bmw. the bmw has been "adjusted" once already. until those other cars get "adjusted", this just continues to sound like a bmw witch hunt. i am not going to believe otherwise until some effort is expended elsewhere.

nick's rx7 in the ne is max'd out according to andy. good! it holds a bunch of track records....set this year. nice job to that team. that is an awesome effort! what cars held the previous records? at least one of them was a pre-restrictor plate bmw. so here we have an rx7 that is turning faster laps than some top bmw's *before* they were notched down a little. hmmm.

there are lots of bmw's out there racing. we share setup info. most of the cars are very well set up. our driving is getting better (at least mine is...slowly :smilie_pokal: ). as a group, bmw's will do better as a result of this. build an rx7 like nick's or one of those "underweight" 944s and kick our butts! well, you don't have to go to that extreme to beat me...i am still learning... B)

JeffYoung

09-15-2005, 10:05 PM

Marshall, nice post. Look, I understand the E36 guys feel targeted, but I think there is a reason for it. More on that in minute.

I of course care about results -- I want to win (despite what my car choice suggests!). All I am saying is that trying to class cars and come up with comp adjustments via broad 'results' analysis is tough -- see Darin's post on that. Temp. drivers, competition, track friendliness to makes, just too many variables.

All I am saying is that by one objective criteria, the 325 is out of whack, and that is weight. All other major IT contenders are a few percent off of their curb weight. The 325 is not. It's at least two hundred pounds less.

Also, I am AGAINST the restrictor. I think it is a bad idea in iT, and against class philosophy. Go make as much horsepower as the IT rules allow -- that to me is fair and I will have to deal with it as a competitor (I'm probably the only car in ITS that has more torque than an E36).

But the weight break given the 325 -- and that is what it is -- is wrong. It needs to be fixed.

That's all I'm saying.

I want E36s in the class, and I like it that you guys work together on setup and stuff. It's cool, it's very IT to me. Just fix the weight and I shut up.

JeffYoung

09-15-2005, 10:07 PM

Marshall, wanted a separate post on this.

I really, really don't think there is a "get the BMW" mentality. I mean, yes, I root against the cars and for RX7s and 240zs and 240sxs because I think those cars are fighting an uphill battle against a car that is super competent and too light.

I think that is what has provoked the reaction to the 325 -- not only is it good, but it got a weight break right out of the box. Fix that and I promise you, 90% of the BMW bashing goes away. If the 325 can beat teh Zs and the RXs at 3000 lbs, then those cars have NOTHING to complain about.

You agree?

robits325is

09-15-2005, 10:18 PM

Slowing down the top ITS cars is leadership from the rear.

ITA cars are being developed to the point where they are right on the heels of the lead ITS cars. Is there a limit on the obtainable performance of any particular car? A well invested and well developed car should win wether it has a propeller on the hood or not. The E-36 isn't an overdog, everyone else has become content with the development of there particular cars (less a few fast and well developed cars i.e. Nick's Screaming Blue Mazda)

The guys with the fast and well developed cars will keep getting faster and everyone else will keep complaining.

Rob

Z3_GoCar

09-15-2005, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 15 2005, 06:40 PM
who came up with a 20% driveline loss? is there any shred of evidence to back that up? i doubt it.

I said it and I was wrong. It's 18% loss from the crankshaft translates to roughly a 21% gain from the drive wheels. However, not to account for driveline losses would be a serious mistake. It's only the drive wheel hp/torque that matters, so I say who cares about the crank numbers it's the wheel numbers that should be used to keep things even.

James

Z3_GoCar

09-15-2005, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by robits325is@Sep 15 2005, 07:18 PM

ITA cars are being developed to the point where they are right on the heels of the lead ITS cars.

Rob

60344

So true, last double regional at Infineon, an ITA Mazda and Acura finished ahead of the 2nd place ITS Mazda, then 3 ITA spec Miata's finished ahead of the 3rd place ITS Acura. All within two minutes of each other. If the ITS guys truly have a hp/weight advantage over ITA, they're not using it.

James

Ron Earp

09-15-2005, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 16 2005, 02:36 AM
I said it and I was wrong. It's 18% loss from the crankshaft translates to roughly a 21%

60345

I don't think it is nearly that high on cars, and I know I am in the minority. I have been dynoing cars for years and have found that when dynoing bone stock the 18-25% rule never fits, and, a more telling piece of data - Ford engineers published a paper on the high efficiency of the drivetrain in my truck and found it only ate up around 11% of power with a 4spd OD trans with a 9.5" rear end that is extremely heavy.

Don't worry about the power, worry about the weight, that is what is wrong.

Ron

lateapex911

09-16-2005, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 15 2005, 09:40 PM
........ the bmw has been "adjusted" once already. until those other cars get "adjusted", this just continues to sound like a bmw witch hunt. i am not going to believe otherwise until some effort is expended elsewhere.

60337

In a relatively short period, you may be a believer

Banzai240

09-16-2005, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by robits325is@Sep 16 2005, 02:18 AM
The guys with the fast and well developed cars will keep getting faster and everyone else will keep complaining.

Rob

60344

NOT if we can show them that it's classified correctly... In this case, we can't...

Banzai240

09-16-2005, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 16 2005, 05:23 AM
In a relatively short period, you may be a believer

60357

Keep things close to the vest Jake... You wouldn't want these guys getting the impression we have a plan in mind or that we may have an idea about what we are doing or anything like that... :rolleyes:

Andy Bettencourt

09-16-2005, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by robits325is@Sep 15 2005, 09:18 PM
Slowing down the top ITS cars is leadership from the rear.

ITA cars are being developed to the point where they are right on the heels of the lead ITS cars. Is there a limit on the obtainable performance of any particular car? A well invested and well developed car should win wether it has a propeller on the hood or not. The E-36 isn't an overdog, everyone else has become content with the development of there particular cars (less a few fast and well developed cars i.e. Nick's Screaming Blue Mazda)

The guys with the fast and well developed cars will keep getting faster and everyone else will keep complaining.

Rob

60344

You are right Rob. But the fast and developed Mazda's and 240Z's can't compete with the fast and well developed E36's. Nick's RX-7 has never been faster, so it will be interesting to see how well he can do at RA in terms of laps. Just more data really.

When you compare apples to apples, the on-track performance of the E36 supports the 'process' that it is too light. Simple really.

You guys were able to beat Nick's car without the HP your cars were capable of. How do you define an 'overdog'?

AB

chuck baader

09-16-2005, 08:04 AM

I have an idea :023: Let's take the fastest BMW, 7, and Z and have a round robin race. Let each driver race his own car first, one of the other cars second and third with practice sessions and/or maintenance sessions between. That way we can remove the largest variable in the whole discussion :bash_1_: I submit that all the cars would be extremely equal :)

Another thought...how many of you have actually built your car? When the interior and sound deadning is removed, a BMW can be under weight beyond that allowed to be added in the front passenger foot well. Adding weight as some have proposed will necessitate reinstallation of the interior! I, for one, would not like all that flamable vinyl around me. Chuck

Banzai240

09-16-2005, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 16 2005, 12:04 PM
Adding weight as some have proposed will necessitate reinstallation of the interior! I, for one, would not like all that flamable vinyl around me. Chuck

60365

NOT true... The ITAC recommended and the CRB approved ballast rule changes last year... There is no longer a 100lbs limit... New rule simply states "Ballast may be used", then defines segment size and location...

Cars wouldn't have to change, just add more lead...

I don't see how someone can say that the cars would be "equal", when on has such a clear wt/hp advantage, not to mention GOBS more torque as well... Simply doesn't add up, nor does the data support such a claim... Especially not top vs top...

its66

09-16-2005, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by rlearp@Sep 16 2005, 02:59 AM
I don't think it is nearly that high on cars, and I know I am in the minority. I have been dynoing cars for years and have found that when dynoing bone stock the 18-25% rule never fits, and, a more telling piece of data - Ford engineers published a paper on the high efficiency of the drivetrain in my truck and found it only ate up around 11% of power with a 4spd OD trans with a 9.5" rear end that is extremely heavy.

Don't worry about the power, worry about the weight, that is what is wrong.

Ron

60350

<HIJACK>

While I'm not an engineer, I question the validity of trying to assign a flat percentage number to drivetrain loss. Wouldn't it take the same amount of force (torque-HP) to turn a given drivetrain at a given RPM level? If you measure flywheel HP and RWHP for, let's say a 405 hp Z06, then swap a lower HP engine into the same chassis, wouldn't the percentage loss change?

example
405 flywheel HP
340 RWHP
net 65 hp used to turn the drivetrain 5900 rpm
16% loss

now, swap in a..um mythical e36 engine
let's assume it is completely stock with the factory 189 flywheel HP
Which way would you esitmate the RWHP?

189 - 65 = 124
or
189 x .84 = 158.76

I know this is different than conventional wisdom, but turning a shaft, axle, wheel, etc. is work. Turning it a certain RPM is a measurable amount of work. Horsepower is a measure of work. That amount of work shouldn't change simply because there is a bigger "horse" doing the work.

Just thinking out loud.

<HIJACK OFF>

mlytle

09-16-2005, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 16 2005, 12:12 PM

I don't see how someone can say that the cars would be "equal", when on has such a clear wt/hp advantage, not to mention GOBS more torque as well... Simply doesn't add up, nor does the data support such a claim... Especially not top vs top...

60369

because it isn't just about weight and hp. it is also about all the other qualities of the car too...brakes, suspension, cg, wheelbase, mass, front vs. rear drive, etc, etc, etc. all these cars are inherently different and will never perform the same in all parts of the track. wt/hp is just ONE factor. "equal" is the ability to finish together at the end of a race, not the end of a straight. we aren't drag racers, thankfully! :D

Ron Earp

09-16-2005, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by its66@Sep 16 2005, 12:14 PM
<HIJACK> Wouldn't it take the same amount of force (torque-HP) to turn a given drivetrain at a given RPM level?

<HIJACK ON>
Jim, don't worry about conventional wisdom, I think you are right as well. We've discussed it quite a bit on www.gt40s.com too and I along with some powertrain engineers from GM that are members did some heat calculations. Using flat percentages cannot be correct (but can be close), especially with some of the high hp motors we use with our transaxles because the heat dissipation becomes a real problem - 1hp = 746W and you end up with just too much heat to get rid of.

I generally use the dyno just for changes, the absolute number doesn't mean a lot to me. The 11% that came from that Ford SAE paper was not precisely what Ford wrote, they wrote the parasitic losses as a kW figure, which one can convert to hp, and then to a fraction of what the motor puts out. It was noteworthy because they had acheived low losses with a heavy truck driveline.
<HIJACK OFF>

Sounds like some weight is coming for the BMWs. Maybe that will bring some parity back to the SE in ITS at the long tracks in the region. That old weight/hp arguement doesn't work too well because it simply ignores that engines' torque curve and the area under that curve is considerably more than other cars in the class.

I just don't think it is arguable about the weight - the car weighs much less than street trim and it is the only car to my knowledge that is like that. 10% less than street weight is a nice classification - I wish I had that on my JH. I'm classed at 2240, most JH street cars with all the stuff weigh in at 2170-2200. If I could have 10% off my street weight of around 2200lbs I'd be at 1980lbs. I think at that weight with a 2L DOHC 140 hp stock 4 banger, a lot of folks would suddenly become interested in JHs.

Just like they are with BMWs at 2850lbs and 175 stock hp.

Ron

Banzai240

09-16-2005, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 16 2005, 12:34 PM
because it isn't just about weight and hp. it is also about all the other qualities of the car too...brakes, suspension, cg, wheelbase, mass, front vs. rear drive, etc, etc, etc. all these cars are inherently different and will never perform the same in all parts of the track. wt/hp is just ONE factor. "equal" is the ability to finish together at the end of a race, not the end of a straight. we aren't drag racers, thankfully! :D

60371

You are preaching to the choir... I feel like you guys aren't paying attention to what I've been trying to say... Maybe I'm just not being clear, or maybe over 7-pages of post the explanations blur together...

As I've stated before, wt/hp ratio is a STARTING point... That is where the BASE weight comes from... From there, the real speculation begins, because that is when you start looking at suspension, drive-train, brakes, tranny-ratios, etc...

In this case, have you MEASURED the brakes on an BMW??? They are HUGE... Additionally, certain makes tend to have advantages in other areas... The BMWs almost always have very good tranny ratios, and the suspension on this car is really good... All of this in comparison, I might add, to the "control" cars in the class.

In other words, we try to establish a weight based on a wt/hp ratio, then we add or subtract weight for the "adders" by seeing how the subject car compares to the other cars in the class...

Now, in this PARTICULAR case, I can find no compelling argument to support the idea that the car is correctly classified, when it's BASE weight should be anywhere from 3100-3250lbs or so (depending on whose HP figures you use...), and THEN you factor in a close ratio tranny, huge brakes, etc... keeping in mind, of course, that the extra weight will negate certain factors, of course...

You see... believe it or not, we actually DO think about all these things before making recomendation... Whether you guys want to believe it or not, the ITAC is doing it's darndest to work in the best interests of Improved Touring as a class... We have no interest and nothing to gain by singling out specific makes/models/etc...

bldn10

09-16-2005, 10:25 AM

"Looking over some past ITS Road Atlanta results I can't find ANY car with ANY driver under a 1:41 in ITS. Not even Chet in his old 240."

Looking through my far-from-complete past RA results I found the following under 1:41:

ARRC 2004 - Chet 1:40.936 BMW
ARRC 2004 qual. - Ed York 1:40.890 BMW
ARRC 2001 qual. - Sylvain Tremblay 1:40.372 RX-7

Catch22

09-16-2005, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 16 2005, 12:04 PM
Another thought...how many of you have actually built your car? When the interior and sound deadning is removed, a BMW can be under weight beyond that allowed to be added in the front passenger foot well. Adding weight as some have proposed will necessitate reinstallation of the interior! I, for one, would not like all that flamable vinyl around me. Chuck

Oh boo hoo.
I'm mailing you a box of tissues.

Try getting an Integra GSR up to 2700lbs (classed at 2575 in Honda Challenge and Grand Am and thats about what it weighs with an 8 point cage and a 180lb driver).
Or how about a 2900lb Prelude. I think the OPM car has a John Deere riding mower welded into the hatch.

Try again. There are already people out there adding 150+ pounds to get to minimum weight. So the poor BMW guys can do it too.

And all this stuff about who can win where and ITA cars being faster than ITS cars is just useless. You have to look at the BIG events and what happens when the competition is all there.
That guy you are talking about that murders most of ITS at Lime Rock on a regional weekend DOES NOT do so at the ARRC. He's very fast to be sure, but 2 to 3 seconds behind the ITS leaders at that race.
The ITA track record at VIR is now 6 seconds off the ITS record.

Bottom line... The TOP, fully prepared, hot shoed E36s are going to whip up on the top, fully prepped, hot shoed RX7s, 240s, and Integras all day long. I don't need a round robin tournament, I see it on every race weekend.

Z3_GoCar

09-16-2005, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by rlearp+Sep 16 2005, 05:46 AM-->

Sounds like some weight is coming for the BMWs. Maybe that will bring some parity back to the SE in ITS at the long tracks in the region.

[/b]

Just remember if you slow the BMW's down too much for the South East we'll have ITA cars finishing AHEAD of ITS cars in SoPac and SFR. All season long we've has ITA Mazda's/Acura's finishing 2nd thru 10th in ITS, even spec Miata's are beating ITS Mazda's. To me that sounds like someone needs to work on their car and develop it's potential not complain that BMW's are just better.

<!--QuoteBegin-rlearp@Sep 16 2005, 05:46 AM

I just don't think it is arguable about the weight - the car weighs much less than street trim and it is the only car to my knowledge that is like that. 10% less than street weight is a nice classification - I wish I had that on my JH. I'm classed at 2240, most JH street cars with all the stuff weigh in at 2170-2200. If I could have 10% off my street weight of around 2200lbs I'd be at 1980lbs. I think at that weight with a 2L DOHC 140 hp stock 4 banger, a lot of folks would suddenly become interested in JHs.

Just like they are with BMWs at 2850lbs and 175 stock hp.

Ron

60374

Just a thought but how much sound deading material was in your Jensen? I bet I've got more sound proofing in my Z3. Actually the Z3 is alot like your JH, right down to the 138hp 4pot. So should we be adding 500lbs to match the Z3, or are you just fine in ITS? :P

James

RacerBowie

09-16-2005, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 16 2005, 12:27 PM
Just remember if you slow the BMW's down too much for the South East we'll have ITA cars finishing AHEAD of ITS cars in SoPac and SFR. All season long we've has ITA Mazda's/Acura's finishing 2nd thru 10th in ITS, even spec Miata's are beating ITS Mazda's. To me that sounds like someone needs to work on their car and develop it's potential not complain that BMW's are just better.
Just a thought but how much sound deading material was in your Jensen? I bet I've got more sound proofing in my Z3. Actually the Z3 is alot like your JH, right down to the 138hp 4pot. So should we be adding 500lbs to match the Z3, or are you just fine in ITS? :P

James

60389

...and when those very same top-level spec miatas come to Road Atlanta, they are ALWAYS slower than my ITA Miata, and I am about 1.4 seconds or so off the fastest guys in ITA, who are another 3 seconds off the ITS BMWs. (Spec Miata lap record at Road Atlanta is 1:45.3, ITA Record is a 1:43.3, ITS record is a 1:40.2)

Maybe the ITS cars in your region just suck? We have the closest thing IT has to a national championship in our region (ATL), so we see a pretty darn good representation of no-compromises cars. If SMs are beating A cars, the A cars aren't developed or driven well. If SMs are beating S cars, the S cars SUCK!

Bowie
ITA Miata

Ron Earp

09-16-2005, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 16 2005, 04:27 PM
Just a thought but how much sound deading material was in your Jensen? I bet I've got more sound proofing in my Z3. Actually the Z3 is alot like your JH, right down to the 138hp 4pot. So should we be adding 500lbs to match the Z3, or are you just fine in ITS? :P
James

60389

Ummmmm, like none. You've got more sound proofing in your car than I have metal in mine. And the metal is so thin I think I'm going to fly through the floor pan when I hop in. In fact, your sound proofing probably weighs more than my floor pans. :lol: So, no, the Z3 is not a lot like a JH - your car won't fall apart and doesn't have to be treated like it is made from Renoylds aluminum wrap. Plus, you don't have the joy of working on a Colin Chapman (aka The Master of Cheap) designed engine, man, what fun! :angry:

As for being fine in ITS, well, we don't know! Haven't driven the car, hell, haven't started the car due to bad head work that I was foolish enough not to check. Idiot I am :angry: . But, I'll be fine in ITS, I can feel it. Use The Force Luke.

JeffYoung

09-16-2005, 01:15 PM

JH and Z3 the same! Ha.....uh..no....you got drums out back? trailing arms that aren't even as thick as my forearm? tin pan floor pan that BENDS when you put a heavy tool on it?

The spec weight is probably necessary for the car to be in ITS. If it was classed lighter, you're looking at a car that has 170-80 hp potential at 2000 lbs. Probably not right either.

But it's not going to be easy to get the car to 2200. Right now, pushing it around, it FEELs less than 2000 but who knows.

Back to Bimmers..yoo hoo...Bimmer brigade...why is the car at 2850?

Bruce Shafer

09-16-2005, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 16 2005, 01:15 PM
Back to Bimmers..yoo hoo...Bimmer brigade...why is the car at 2850?

To my knowledge nobody on this board spec'd the car when it was listed. Apparently we were just lucky enough to catch a competitive car when reading the GCR for entertainment. Also remember something to the effect of no cars being guaranteed to be competitive.

You guys might have a winner too with the JH and TR8. Good luck. :023:

Ron Earp

09-16-2005, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 16 2005, 05:30 PM
You guys might have a winner too with the JH and TR8. Good luck. :023:

60394

Next year is my Rookie year as a driver and the JH will be running. Jeff's TR8 seems to be solved and I think she'll be a runner again. Prepare to feel the wrath of the British Empire! :blink:

Didn't spec the car, what does that mean? The car is specified if it is in the GCR. And, it used to weigh more too, wasn't it originally at 2950?

R

Bruce Shafer

09-16-2005, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Sep 16 2005, 01:38 PM
Didn't spec the car, what does that mean? The car is specified if it is in the GCR. And, it used to weigh more too, wasn't it originally at 2950?

I meant none of us had anything to do with how the car was written up in the GCR (at least I haven't heard that rumor yet). :unsure:

As I remember correctly, it was originally at 2850, then there was an attempt to raise it to 2950. I believe somebody then read the current rules at the time to the CB and the attempt was rescinded. That is my take on what went down.

JeffYoung

09-16-2005, 01:54 PM

Bruce, I've probably been too beligerent on this issue. Let me try something more constructive.

Would you guys (the Bimmer crowd) be ok with no restrictor and 3050 lb race weight?

That seems like the correct, fair result to me. I frankly think the restrictor was a bad idea.

Ron Earp

09-16-2005, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 16 2005, 05:49 PM
, then there was an attempt to raise it to 2950. I believe somebody then read the current rules at the time to the CB and the attempt was rescinded. That is my take on what went down.

60396

Sounds like the same person that rescinded that also recommended a restrictor plate that did nothing.

R

lateapex911

09-16-2005, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by RacerBowie@Sep 16 2005, 01:03 PM
...and when those very same top-level spec miatas come to Road Atlanta, they are ALWAYS slower than my ITA Miata, and I am about 1.4 seconds or so off the fastest guys in ITA, who are another 3 seconds off the ITS BMWs. (Spec Miata lap record at Road Atlanta is 1:45.3, ITA Record is a 1:43.3, ITS record is a 1:40.2)

Maybe the ITS cars in your region just suck? We have the closest thing IT has to a national championship in our region (ATL), so we see a pretty darn good representation of no-compromises cars. If SMs are beating A cars, the A cars aren't developed or driven well. If SMs are beating S cars, the S cars SUCK!

Bowie
ITA Miata

60391

Well, I was going to suggest something along the lines that the S guys in his region need to do THEIR homework, not the non BMW guys in the rest of the country, as suggested by the original poster.............

But I think you got the point across just fine, LOL. ;)

In the bigger picture guys, that post highlights how dangerous it is to start trotting out results. Unless you compare ALOT of results, and you know the cars, and you look at the same cars at different tracks and you know the conditions, and the drivers, you can get in trouble. Like our West coast friend has done.

His "Mazdas rule at Mazda raceway" in ITA is a case in point. Sounds like Utopia to me, but how can it be???

Fact: an RX-7 has a live rear axle, a strut front, fair brakes, is impossible to balance fr or lr, and makes, at the most, 130 legal hp, with about 102 lb ft of tq., and weighs just under 2400 as raced.

Fact: an Integra has a much better front suspension, as good or better brakes, and makes 155 hp with about 135 lb ft of tq., and races 100 lbs heavier.

I'm sorry, but a car with a better overall package, and 30% more torque, has NO REASON to be slower! (I have a friend who deleloped the heck out of an ITA RX-7, and gave up. Got an Acura...first time on the track with a stock engine and a half baked suspension he was more than a second a minute faster per lap)

There are two answers to the Mazda dominence out west...they are either illegal, or the masses of them have convinced newcomers that it is the car to have and the other cars haven't been fully developed. If it were me in that area, I'd go to the ARRCs and buy Serras car, come home and clean up.

So, it's physics when it comes to classing.

As a organizational body, we must get the physics and the dynamic characteristics of the cars right, apply that to a standard for every class, and let the drivers and preparers decide the results.

The results should have as little to do with the physical properties of each car as is possible, because they have been classed appropriately.

If it were me I would re-write the clause in the begining that says "There is no guarantee of competiveness" to say, "There is no guarantee of competiveness, but we will try really hard to get things close. Have fun!"

lateapex911

09-16-2005, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 16 2005, 01:54 PM
Bruce, I've probably been too beligerent on this issue. Let me try something more constructive.

Would you guys (the Bimmer crowd) be ok with no restrictor and 3050 lb race weight?

That seems like the correct, fair result to me. I frankly think the restrictor was a bad idea.

60398

Jeff, you crack me up! You're not feeling ignored, are you??

;)

JeffYoung

09-16-2005, 03:00 PM

LOL.......no, I'm just stupidly persistent......

Bruce Shafer

09-16-2005, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 16 2005, 01:54 PM
Bruce, I've probably been too beligerent on this issue. Let me try something more constructive.

Huh? Haven't noticed.

Would you guys (the Bimmer crowd) be ok with no restrictor and 3050 lb race weight?

I'll settle for 2860 and not a pound more! :angry:

Banzai240

09-16-2005, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 16 2005, 07:14 PM
I'll settle for 2860 and not a pound more! :angry:

60410

Well of course you would... the numbers would predict that as well... :rolleyes:

Bruce Shafer

09-16-2005, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 16 2005, 03:20 PM
Well of course you would... the numbers would predict that as well... :rolleyes:

60411

Hey, where did you find that rolleyes emoticon? That's the one I needed... :rolleyes:

Knestis

09-16-2005, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 16 2005, 06:41 PM
... As a organizational body, we must get the physics and the dynamic characteristics of the cars right, apply that to a standard for every class, and let the drivers and preparers decide the results.

The results should have as little to do with the physical properties of each car as is possible, because they have been classed appropriately. ...

The crowd goes wild!

:happy204: :D :happy204: :happy204: :smilie_pokal: :happy204: :happy204: :happy204: :P

lateapex911

09-16-2005, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer+Sep 16 2005, 03:14 PM-->
Huh? Haven't noticed.
I'll settle for 2860 and not a pound more! :angry:

60410
[/b]

From page 2, I asked:

<!--QuoteBegin-lateapex911
First, I assume nobody racing a BMW wants to have either a real or a perceived overdog, right? I mean, whats the point in winning if everyone walks away saying, "Well, I was first in class...NON BMW class that is.,....." right? It must be a rather hollow victory for a BMW driver....

So, IF there were restrictions to be made, would the E36 guys rather it be all weight, or an SIR to limit the power (not low end torque) to a level more in line with the class targets?
(The Z car and the RX-7)

So, lets try it again........., just for giggles, lets ask the E36 guys, IF the car needs to have it's wings clipped, how would you prefer it?

A- Weight- the car goes thru the process, known rear wheel hp gets plugged in, and then the adders and subtractors get applied. The result will aim for the car to be close to the "bogeys" in the class, and will take into account the usual variables such as susp type, balance, handling, braking and unique engine attributes, and will be tempered by the fact that at the increased weight, any characterisic strengths that might result in "adders" might not be as effective, reducing the need to apply as many, or as strong, "adders"

B- SIR...the Single Air Restrictor. The F3000 style hole thru which all air must pass. It's an optimized shape that the engine doesn't see until it's limit is reached, and then thats it, the curve is flattened. The board would spec a SIR to trim power levels to an appropriate point to match the bogey targets. A major advantage of this approach is that engines that are not making the same power as the strongest engines, (those used by the ITAC in the weight setting procedure are of course, the strongest known legitimate examples), will see no effect of the SIR if they are below the desired level. In other words, some guys won't know these things exist. Cost is negligible in the big picture.

C- Both. A little this, a little that.

Thoughts?

For the purpose of this question, lets just presume "D- nothing" isn't an option.

Bill Miller

09-16-2005, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 16 2005, 03:14 PM
Huh? Haven't noticed.
I'll settle for 2860 and not a pound more! :angry:

60410

And if you end up w/ more than that?? :unsure:

Bill Miller

09-16-2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Sep 16 2005, 08:46 AM

I just don't think it is arguable about the weight - the car weighs much less than street trim and it is the only car to my knowledge that is like that. 10% less than street weight is a nice classification - I wish I had that on my JH. I'm classed at 2240, most JH street cars with all the stuff weigh in at 2170-2200. If I could have 10% off my street weight of around 2200lbs I'd be at 1980lbs. I think at that weight with a 2L DOHC 140 hp stock 4 banger, a lot of folks would suddenly become interested in JHs.

Just like they are with BMWs at 2850lbs and 175 stock hp.

Ron

60374

Ron,

Don't get caught up w/ curb weight, or where the race weight is w/ respect to the curb weight. Especially now that the ballast limit is gone. As I think Darin said, the only time it comes into play, is if it's realistic enough to get a car to a spec weight, based on what the starting curb weight is.

lateapex911

09-16-2005, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 14 2005, 02:58 PM

Jeff...The curb weight is taken into consideration in the process, but the question is usually, "Can this car make the weight it needs to be?"

The process defines the race weight based on creating a competitive model that fits the performance envelope.

Some cars might need to weigh, lets say, 2500 pounds to be competitive in a certain class, but it is known that they could never actually get down that low, so, the next class down is looked at, and the process is repeated for that class.

60150

or maybe it was me that said it......
;)

Banzai240

09-16-2005, 05:26 PM

Guys... PLEASE keep in mind here, that, regardless of what this conversation appears to be about, this whole deal is NOT just about the BMW... That model just happens to stand out and is easy to talk about ...

This is really about ALL of IT... I can assure you that there is WAY more in the works here than simply adjusting the BMW... If anything gets done (still an "IF" at this point), it needs to be a PACKAGE DEAL, designed to make some pretty significant adjustments to IT in general...

In other words, there are many, many cars that are out of whack, on both sides of the middle... The only "right" thing to do would be to attempt to correct IT, not just the BMW...

Like I've said before, there is no "singling" out of this car going on on the ITAC... If you'll give us the time, I have a feeling that you'll be pleased what we are attempting to accomplish, and hopefully even more pleased with the results, should they get implemented... Be patient...

mlytle

09-16-2005, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 16 2005, 05:54 PM
Bruce, I've probably been too beligerent on this issue. Let me try something more constructive.

Would you guys (the Bimmer crowd) be ok with no restrictor and 3050 lb race weight?

That seems like the correct, fair result to me. I frankly think the restrictor was a bad idea.

60398

duh, of course not! you want 200lbs added to your car? more tire wear, more brake wear, more clutch stress, more load on already underdesigned suspension components that we can't beef up. anybody want to be outside us in a high speed curve when the inner front control arm bolt snaps? how about when the cheesy lower rear control arms just fold up? besides, we already had to invest in restrictors and the associated tuning and testing costs. quit costing us more money for no reason. adding weight will cost more in maint, and more in setup and tuning. i put in a lot of time and practice days getting the car closer to where i want it. dropping 200lbs in the passenger foot well will screw everything up. anyone else with any other kind of car want to redo their setup and retune their engine every freakin' year? come on, just because we drive bmw's doesn't mean we are made of money. you guys just trying to price us out of the competition?

i thought the concept of pca's was to make a change, evaluate the results for a while and then reevluate if needed. where is the evaluation of the results? the restritor plate did make a difference (even after a bunch of dyno tuning time).

how about instead of continually trying to add crap to the bmw's, subtracting stuff from the so called "underdogs"? everyone likes going faster, nobody likes going slower and adding more costs to racing. like rob said...speed up the slow cars, don't slow down the fast cars.

Catch22

09-16-2005, 10:40 PM

Even as a non-BMW driver I have to admit that 200lbs is a pretty tough pill to swallow. Thats a load.

As I mentioned before, wouldn't you get pretty much the same result if you added 100lbs to the BMW and took 100lbs OUT of some of the other cars. I don't pretend to know alot about all of the cars in S, but I do know I've seen lots of lead in RX7s, Preludes, and Integras.

That evens things up and helps reduce costs for everybody instead of just adding it to the BMWs. And lets face it guys, weigh = cost.

How many non-BMW cars out there are carrying alot of ballast (around 100lbs or more)?
Lets start a list...

I'm a Honda guy, so I know The Integra GSR, Prelude VTEC and Prelude non VTEC can all remove 100lbs or more (assuming a 180lb driver).
I know many of the RX7s carry lots of ballast, but I don't know how much.

There have been hints here that sweeping changes are coming for more than just the BMW. Maybe this is what is being discussed (lets hope so).

BTW - If the restrictor hurt your BMW on the dyno then you need to make some phone calls. You're in a minority.

Banzai240

09-16-2005, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 17 2005, 02:10 AM
where is the evaluation of the results? the restritor plate did make a difference (even after a bunch of dyno tuning time).

Ummmm... NOTHING has been done at all, nor has it been "recommended"... We felt it was prudent to wait until later in the year when we could then analyze the results... :blink:

Also, we have it on very good authority that the top notch BMW teams have found a legal way to GAIN 7hp WITH the restrictor... As I've said above, it's not that hard to fool the engine into not "seeing" a flat plate restrictor, especially one that was a minimal reduction in the first place and when this point in the engine was NOT the choking point in the first place...

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 17 2005, 02:10 AM
how about instead of continually trying to add crap to the bmw's, subtracting stuff from the so called "underdogs"?

Doesn't ANYONE read what I've been posting??? :119:

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 17 2005, 02:10 AM
everyone likes going faster, nobody likes going slower and adding more costs to racing. like rob said...speed up the slow cars, don't slow down the fast cars.

60431

Well, this is NOT Production... You can't just "speed up" a car... The idea mentioned above about adding to some, and taking away from others, is more in line with what needs to be done...

If you had read what I wrote, I flat out said the idea is to bring everyone toward the "middle"...

The BMW needs one of two things for this to happen... 1) Have quite a bit of weight added, to at LEAST 3100lbs, or 2) Restrict the HP output of the engine to 220hp and leave it at it's current weight...

The Single Inlet Restrictors are basically invisible to the engine up to the point where they need to be visible, so throttle response, etc., it not suppose to be effected. Additionally, with this kind of restrictor, there is a pretty solid formula that essentially tells you precisely what size the restrictor needs to be for a given motor to limit it to a given HP... They basically go "sonic" at a particular airflow, and simply won't pass any more volume of air... NO more air, no more HP...

We are aware that other factors come into play, but by and large, the largest is power output... Everything else adds fractions of a second after that...

However, at this point, NOTHING has even been suggested "officially" in any of these directions, so this is all just shop talk at this point...

lateapex911

09-17-2005, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 16 2005, 10:10 PM
duh, of course not! you want 200lbs added to your car? more tire wear, more brake wear, more clutch stress, ......... adding weight will cost more in maint, and more in setup and tuning. ...........

So, i guess you like option "B" better?

......how about instead of continually trying to add crap to the bmw's, subtracting stuff from the so called "underdogs"? everyone likes going faster, nobody likes going slower and adding more costs to racing. like rob said...speed up the slow cars, don't slow down the fast cars.

60431

No, I think that strategy is flawed.

First, I think adding weight is cheaper than removing it. In both cases the car needs a new setup, but thats it. Pulling weight out is pricey.

Second, lets do the math....let's say the E36 needs to weigh 3100, or 250 lbs more....to be equal to the "bogey"...
{if the whp is 217, that works out to a p/w ratio of 14.3, the RX-7, which is reportedly putting down a max of 180, weighs 2680 for a p/w ratio of 14.9}
(( so actually the E36 would need to weigh 3233 if we use 217 and want hit the same p/w ratio of the RX-7))

Taking the strategy of leaving the fast guys alone means the E36 remains at 2850, right? At 217 whp that works out to a 13.1 p/w ratio.

So, to make the RX-7 equal, it needs to weigh 2360..... a nice drop of 320 lbs.

So, then, what about the guys who have a hard time running with the RX-7?

I just don't see the logic of leaving ONE car alone in the class, but requiring the entire class to drop hundreds of pounds to equalize!

First, it's impossible.

Second, it is VERY expensive... every part that is optional now gets reengineered for function AND lightness. Things that were cheap now need to be made of lightweight, and expensive materials. There is cost associated with going thru the whole car, as well as the componentry itself.

And requiring every car in the class to do it except one is clearly not in the best interests of the class at large.

Banzai240

09-17-2005, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 17 2005, 05:17 AM
And requiring every car in the class to do it except one is clearly not in the best interests of the class at large.

60440

In addition to what Jake said... It simply wouldn't make sense... especially when there is a good group of cars that equate well compared to each other just a notch BELOW the E36... As has been stated numerous times... this car is an outlier... not the only one, but definately part of that group...

If it make you feel any better, the 944S is there as well, though to a lesser degree... Possibly the Mercedes 2.3 16V as well, but we don't have enough data on that one to make a valid detemination...

lateapex911

09-17-2005, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 17 2005, 01:38 AM
... Possibly the Mercedes 2.3 16V as well, but we don't have enough data on that one to make a valid detemination...

60442

......yet..

;)

Ron Earp

09-17-2005, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 17 2005, 05:38 AM
Possibly the Mercedes 2.3 16V as well, but we don't have enough data on that one to make a valid detemination...

60442

You know I'm a sucker for the orphan cars, and, I have been on Ebay a lot lately looking for a particular 16V 4 pot ooops.........

Catch22

09-17-2005, 09:35 AM

I do agree that it costs money to lighten a car beyond where it sits when you finish it. Lightweight fasteners, 8 pound Volk Wheels... blah blah blah.

But it doesn't cost a damned thing to remove 100lbs of ballast from a car.
THAT is actually cheaper for everyone. And plenty of ITS cars are carrying ballast.

As Darrin said, bring everyone to the middle. Don't just add weight to one car, take the ballast out of others. This is a fairly easy opportunity guys, one trip around the ARRC paddock and rolling various cars across the scales with/without ballast answers a bunch of questions.

I don't want to seem like I'm harping on the Integra, its just that I used to own one so I know ALOT about its situation in S. The fastest one I've seen is still a good 3ish seconds AT BEST off the fastest BMWs (note that this is a fastest to fastest comparison). It also gives up about 30whp (conservatively) and GOBS of torque (about 70lb ft) to the BMW, same dyno, same day.
Yet, for some reason the Integra needs to weigh nearly 2700lbs.
Now, I'm a 200+ pound driver, and my Integra had an 8 point custom cage that looked like monkey bars from the local playground. Yet, it STILL needed nearly 100lbs of ballast to make minimum weight.
This is in a car that struggles to be even CLOSE to the top dog in the class.

This makes NO sense at all. NONE.

chuck baader

09-17-2005, 09:50 AM

Scott, one thing you are not considering is that a front drive power train is almost 50% more efficient that a rear drive.

You are assuming all things being equal...same dyno...same day. That does not account for 1. driver 2. setup 3. track 4. weather 5. tires, etc. There are too many variables involved to just look at hp numbers. That is what the comp board is trying to SWAG.

One other question...who has made a 10tenths effort on the Integra AND had the driving ability of a Whittle or York? Until that happens, we have conjecture as to what could/should be. Chuck

Banzai240

09-17-2005, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 17 2005, 01:50 PM
Scott, one thing you are not considering is that a front drive power train is almost 50% more efficient that a rear drive.

You are assuming all things being equal...same dyno...same day. That does not account for 1. driver 2. setup 3. track 4. weather 5. tires, etc. There are too many variables involved to just look at hp numbers. That is what the comp board is trying to SWAG.

60449

WHY do you guys keep assuming that everything is a "SWAG"?? That's insulting and simply inaccurate...

For the record, our research has shown that RWD configurations typcially have 15-18% drivetrain losses... Some will be more, some may be less, but that is a typical number...

For FWD, it's more like 12-15%...

We DO take that into consideration...

AND, the ACURA in ITS is classified almost perfectly, given all these parameters, and when compared to the "Bogey" cars... Don't tell me these cars can't win, because we have two of them here in the NW and they are freaking ROCKETS...

But, can they compete with the BMW... I keep saying over and over and over and over... that the BMW is an OUTLIER... When run through the classification process, NO other car is even close to this cars numbers... It's performance potential was CLEARLY underestimated when it was classified...

So, we don't GUESS... and there is nothing silly about it either... ;)

We analyze the information we have available and make the best estimations/proximations the data will allow us to make, and then go from there...

It's funny... two years ago, classifications were truely a best guess... You guys were clammering for a "formula"... Then, we develop a process that uses many of the ideas you guys suggested, retaining some of the necessary subjectivity, and now you are arguing against the results of that as well...
:blink:

Ron Earp

09-17-2005, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 17 2005, 02:36 PM
For the record, our research has shown that RWD configurations typcially have 15-18% drivetrain losses... Some will be more, some may be less, but that is a typical number...

For FWD, it's more like 12-15%...
60450

For percentages, which I figure rough, this is correct. Chuck, a FWD drivetrain is not 50% more efficient than a RWD setup. And, it makes no difference if one is 10x more efficient than that other - all that matters is how much hp hits the pavement (dyno rollers). As an extreme example a 1000hp motor that puts 100hp and 100 ft/lb torque to the ground is still going to do the same amount of work that a 150hp motor putting down the same.

I think the board is doing their best to set things right and there is not doubt the BMW is an outlier. Maybe your BMW specifically isn't an outlier, but there are plently others that are.

R

Bruce Shafer

09-17-2005, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 16 2005, 11:04 PM
Also, we have it on very good authority that the top notch BMW teams have found a legal way to GAIN 7hp WITH the restrictor...

I believe the current restrictor was a 15% percent reduction. So given this logic if we are given a 30% restrictor we'll gain 14 horsepower? Believe it or not, I did think you guys were rational until I read this.

I'm calling Sunbelt Monday morning for a 50% restrictor... :rolleyes:

Banzai240

09-17-2005, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 17 2005, 03:58 PM
I believe the current restrictor was a 15% percent reduction. So given this logic if we are given a 30% restrictor we'll gain 14 horsepower? Believe it or not, I did think you guys were rational until I read this.

I'm calling Sunbelt Monday morning for a 50% restrictor... :rolleyes:

60452

Bruce,

I'm not even going to begin to think you are this naive... You are playing with numbers in an illogical manner and you know it... You aren't going to prove your point by doing this, only make yourself look like an ... well, you know...

Do some research and you'll find out that a flat plate restrictor, located under the throttle-plates, can EASILY be fooled... You can't size them based on simple % of restriction, because of where they are located... All you have to do is accelerate the air just ahead of them (like with a venturii), and shoot the air right past... Talk to the GT committee... They've done a TON of research on this... If you are getting the full volume of air to the throttle plates, all you have to do is accelerate it through, and the restrictor will not be seen...

That is why The GT classes are going with the SIRs... These are at the beginning of the airstream, and they absolutely limit the air entering the engine... Look at the ALMS or F3000 or ??? You'll notice a little aluminum inlet on their air intakes... Looks REALLY small... THAT's an SIR.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I supsect that an SIR of around 30mm is what's going to be required to get a 2.5L engine like the BMW restricted to 220hp... based on what the GT guys use for a formula... We'd have to talk with the guys on the GT committee to get the exact formula for an IT engine... Fortunately for us, Bob Dowie, or CRB Liason, is also the CRB liason for the GT-committee, so we have direct information...

chuck baader

09-17-2005, 12:11 PM

OOPS, I think I hit a nerve with SWAG. However when the parameters used to determine the classification of cars is published in the GCR, those of us not on the comp board will understand the process, not be frustrated by the process, and no longer use terms such as "SWAG".

As a side note, every engineer I have worked with used some form of SWAG. It comes from experience in designing everything from cars to fence posts. To me, it is not a bad thing. Chuck

Bruce Shafer

09-17-2005, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 17 2005, 12:09 PM
Bruce,

I'm not even going to begin to think you are this naive... You are playing with numbers in an illogical manner and you know it... You aren't going to prove your point by doing this, only make yourself look like an ... well, you know...

Do some research and you'll find out that a flat plate restrictor, located under the throttle-plates, can EASILY be fooled... You can't size them based on simple % of restriction, because of where they are located... All you have to do is accelerate the air just ahead of them (like with a venturii), and shoot the air right past... Talk to the GT committee... They've done a TON of research on this... If you are getting the full volume of air to the throttle plates, all you have to do is accelerate it through, and the restrictor will not be seen...

I understand the venturi effect, and everything you say I agree with if we could make changes to the intake tract. However, we can't make any changes.

I'm off this thread until Monday or Tuesday. Damn I swore up and down I wasn't going to read this over the weekend! :(

lateapex911

09-17-2005, 12:39 PM

Jeez Bruce, it appears you don't actually read what some of us write, do you?

So, go back to my posts...do you prefer the idea of another form of "wing clippping"??

How can you not even discuss the numbers that show the car is an outlier?

Your head is in the sand, my friend....

Catch22

09-17-2005, 12:47 PM

50% Chuck?
Your arguments would hold more water if you'd stop just making stuff up.

The numbers above are more correct. In my Integra it was about 15%. The BMWs and RX7s appear to be around 20%.
More loss to be sure, but not anywhere close to 50% more.

And Darin... If the GSR is one of those cars thats right in the middle... Why?
What reasonably competitive cars are under it that it needs to add +/- 125lbs of ballast to hit that middle mark? I'm serious, I'm interested in this answer.
It can't be any of the heavy hitters in the class like the 240z, RX7 and of course the BMW.

And to answer your question Chuck... In 2002 my Integra had the extent of the rules under the hood. Anything else would have been illegal.
It was 30 WHEEL (so forget about driveline loss arguments) horsepower under more than one E36 that had sat on the same dyno. One of them on that same day. Torque wasn't even close.
It has about the same HP and torque as the RX7, but it is FWD, has a less than optimal F->R weight distribution and the EXACT SAME brakes that are on the (now) ITA Civics that weigh about 300lbs less. This is a huge disadvantage to the RX7. At 2700lbs you can quite simply destroy the braking components in this car in a 30 minute sprint race. I triple ducted mine... Didn't matter.
I like to be competitive, so I had a choice... Cheat, or sell the car. I sold it.

If its raining... Great ITS car.
Otherwise at 2700lbs its struggling to keep the ITA guys behind it

Ron Earp

09-17-2005, 12:53 PM

I asked the question on my forum on what a 56mm hole would flow. Two engineers answered, one is Fran Hall a GM engineer who has worked on many IRL engines and the other was Adam Christianson (you can find him on BMW forums too, he likes though) who is a Ph.D. engineer specializing in flow dynamics. He included some back of the envelope calculations and indicated he felt the maximum flow (not necessarily what the engine could do) was quite high and that the restrictor would not have an effect.

http://www.gt40s.com/ubbthreads/showflat.p...=true#Post47668 (http://www.gt40s.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=UBB6&Number=47668&Searchpage=1&Main=47668&Words=BMW&topic=&Search=true#Post47668)

As I think I mentioned a long time ago, my old Ford 5L Cougar had a 55mm MAF meter and was able to generate in the neighborhood of 250 rwhp with that in place. Once I removed it power jumped a good bit, but it still supported a lot.

R

Eagle7

09-17-2005, 12:57 PM

If the SIR works like you claim, sounds like a windfall for the BMW. They can have a well-developed car without putting many $thousands into develpment, and also not have the drawbacks of carrying the extra weight. Shouldn't be any complaints, either, since all the whiners claim they don't make anywhere near the HP you're talking about limiting them to.

Looks like your ITS bogey is about 15.5 Lbs/WHP, which seems consistent with what I've heard claimed for the top RX-7s. Looks about right compared with my car too, since I'm no better than mid-pack, and I have to add 25 WHP and drop 50 lbs to hit that bogey. Workin on it :happy204:

lateapex911

09-17-2005, 12:58 PM

Scott, that is interesting info, and I like the objectivity. The brake comments are esp useful. I *Do* wish that the E-36s on the same dyno had been some of the known record setters and max effort cars from the east.

But that's great stuff regardless. Thanks for posting it.

(information like that is just one data point, but multiple data points can tell a story. As we have other data points, each new one can flesh out the picture to a greater degree.)

lateapex911

09-17-2005, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Eagle7@Sep 17 2005, 12:57 PM
If the SIR works like you claim, sounds like a windfall for the BMW. They can have a well-developed car without putting many $thousands into develpment, and also not have the drawbacks of carrying the extra weight. Shouldn't be any complaints, either, since all the whiners claim they don't make anywhere near the HP you're talking about limiting them to.

Looks like your ITS bogey is about 15.5 Lbs/WHP, which seems consistent with what I've heard claimed for the top RX-7s. Looks about right compared with my car too, since I'm no better than mid-pack, and I have to add 25 WHP and drop 50 lbs to hit that bogey. Workin on it :happy204:

60460

Marty, I agree, the SIR would be a freebie in my eyes, LOL....but the Bimmer crowd represented here seems to deny any form of a "problem" in the first place. My comments are totally ignored....

Go back and re-read my post regarding p/w ratios, and you'll get a pretty good idea of the RX-7 place, etc.

Banzai240

09-17-2005, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 17 2005, 04:47 PM
And Darin... If the GSR is one of those cars thats right in the middle... Why?
What reasonably competitive cars are under it that it needs to add +/- 125lbs of ballast to hit that middle mark? I'm serious, I'm interested in this answer.
It can't be any of the heavy hitters in the class like the 240z, RX7 and of course the BMW.
60458

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here with regards to "other cars", but in the case of the Integra, and forgive me because I don't have the exact figures in front of me, when you run the numbers using the same classification process used to evaluate the RX-7, 240Z, BMW, etc., etc., the GSR actually comes in at a weight HIGHER than it's currently classified... This is the same process that has been used to classify/reclassify every car in IT for the past year or so... that yields the results that most seem to be very pleased with when they see the specifications for these cars...

I keep hearing complaints about the brakes, but I don't see how you are at anymore of a disadvantage than MANY other cars in the class. You have a favorable wt/pwr ratio, good gear ratios, a good suspension, etc... Your brakes are average, and the process takes that into consideration... The RX-7s specs, take into consideration it's braking advantage... That's all part of the process...

Like I said... the GSRs here don't seem to have any trouble staying out front for 30-minutes, against some VERY stout 240Zs, etc..., so I'm not sure I can totally sympatize with your braking situation... Your brakes are certainly larger than mine (240SX), and you have WAY more HP to boot... I have torque, and likely better balance. We have different advantages/disadvantages, and we will have to expoit them where we can...

Wanna race??? :023:

Eagle7

09-17-2005, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 17 2005, 01:03 PM
Go back and re-read my post regarding p/w ratios, and you'll get a pretty good idea of the RX-7 place, etc.

60462

OK, 14.9 lbs/WHP for ITS. So now I have to add 34 WHP :(
Any solid experience in comparing Mustang dyno numbers with DynoJet numbers? I keep hearing DynoJet is higher, and I suspect most of these conversations use DynoJet numbers.

Banzai240

09-17-2005, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Eagle7@Sep 17 2005, 05:19 PM
OK, 14.9 lbs/WHP for ITS. So now I have to add 34 WHP :(
Any solid experience in comparing Mustang dyno numbers with DynoJet numbers? I keep hearing DynoJet is higher, and I suspect most of these conversations use DynoJet numbers.

60464

You really can't work strictly from Chassis dyno numbers... They very too much from shop to shop... Might work well to help validate flywheel HP or estimates of such, but on their own, it's tough to trust them...

Catch22

09-17-2005, 07:54 PM

I'd race you in my Integra Darin, but remember... I sold it. I couldn't figure out where to find 30whp ;).

And the guy who bought it???
Converted it to E Prod.
<shrug>

Maybe the tracks up there favor FWD?
I dunno, but we have a former ARRC podium guy (ITC) down here thats been trying to race a GSR for 3 years. If its raining... Look out.
But at the ARRC last year, and at a Pro-IT this year at Road Atlanta... Well off the pace of the ITS leader and well off what top RX7s and 240zs run. Good driver, very well prepped car, new Hoosiers.
At VIR, the top BMWs have run 2:12s. A few RX7s have been in the 14s. The fastest Integra (again, a fully built and well piloted car) is in the 16s.
Maybe the Rocketship GSRs in your neck of the woods are cheating???
The Type R parts bolt right into the GSR, and are easy to buy on ebay any time you want.
Food for thought.

robits325is

09-17-2005, 09:37 PM

What about safety? At its current weight of 2850, the BMW is already heavier than most cars in ITS. Lets assume, for this debate, that the decision was made to either add weight to the BMW or reduce weight to the other cars - increasing the weight differential. What was once light contact, will turn into a big hit for the lighter weight non-E-36 driver.

Rob

mlytle

09-17-2005, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 17 2005, 11:54 PM
I'd race you in my Integra Darin, but remember... I sold it. I couldn't figure out where to find 30whp ;).

And the guy who bought it???
Converted it to E Prod.
<shrug>

Maybe the tracks up there favor FWD?
I dunno, but we have a former ARRC podium guy (ITC) down here thats been trying to race a GSR for 3 years. If its raining... Look out.
But at the ARRC last year, and at a Pro-IT this year at Road Atlanta... Well off the pace of the ITS leader and well off what top RX7s and 240zs run. Good driver, very well prepped car, new Hoosiers.
At VIR, the top BMWs have run 2:12s. A few RX7s have been in the 14s. The fastest Integra (again, a fully built and well piloted car) is in the 16s.
Maybe the Rocketship GSRs in your neck of the woods are cheating???
The Type R parts bolt right into the GSR, and are easy to buy on ebay any time you want.
Food for thought.

60469

integra data point from a labor day race at summit point... pole position was a 1:25.45, integra was 1:25.6 , third was 1:25.8. these three cars are the top three in the marrs series. the integra isn't off the pace, and the other two cars are bmw's.

i had asked the question a few pages ago about what dyno type is being used to come up with these mythical hp numbers for the ratios. still no answer.

when is the itac going to publish this "process" for classifying cars? why does it have to be such a mystery? all we see is insinuations of potential action from the members. why not publish the process and the intentions? why can't this process be more open?

mlytle

09-17-2005, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 17 2005, 05:45 PM
You really can't work strictly from Chassis dyno numbers... They very too much from shop to shop... Might work well to help validate flywheel HP or estimates of such, but on their own, it's tough to trust them...

60466

so what numbers are the itac using????

mlytle

09-17-2005, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 17 2005, 05:03 PM
My comments are totally ignored....

60462

gee, welcome to our world... :angry:

Andy Bettencourt

09-17-2005, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 17 2005, 08:51 PM
so what numbers are the itac using????

60475

Roughly 210whp or 250 crank is what I use when the topic comes up. Based on those numbers (which have been verified by multiple sources), to fit into the current make-up of ITS, the E36 325 SHOULD weigh in excess of 3200lbs WITHOUT a restrictor. Couch that with the 172hp E46 at 3000lbs (which nobody seems to be unhappy with), the 189hp car SHOULD weigh a couple hundo more, no?

Some have commented that 200+ lbs of ballat is excessive. While I agree to a certain extent, properly done it should be no issue. Our team RX-7's run 100lbs on the floor and full 14 gallon gas tanks at the start of every 30 minute sprint. That's about 160lbs right there...

AB

lateapex911

09-17-2005, 10:26 PM

Ignored?

IGNORED?????

Sorry, no dice. I have responded to many of the E36s camps posts and ascertations. So has Darin and Andy, all on the ITAC.

But what I see is a certain denial of the situation, with spin and misleading data sets. Quoting results is not exactly focusing on the mechanical properties of the car.

The one dyno number mentioned, 195, is fine, but doesn't match other numbers submitted previously. Good to add to the data points.

We've discussed the numbers a few times, Darin has outlined the process, and we've even asked for your opinions on options.....I can't remember a time that there has been a more open process, nor a time when there was more open communications between the commitees and the racers. It is truly unprecedented.

I suggest it would be wise to utilize it.

DoubleD

09-17-2005, 10:35 PM

What better thread for a newbie to make his first post in? :119:

There are hundreds of BMWCCA guys who would love to know how to get 220rwhp out of an M50 without cams. If one takes the "best" theoretical driveline loss at peak HP thrown out there (15%) that's 255HP at the flywheel at the peak...notably above the magic 100HP/L mark that BMW enthusiasts have long sought. In reality, the S50 (3.0 motor from the E36 M3) makes just barely more than that on a good day. Further, real world testing has shown the e36's fall into a band of 17%-20% loss at peak, including much newer models like the E46 M3. While we've been offered a real world dyno showing significantly less, we have not been offered one showing 220. Why is that?

Perhaps the most telling aspect of this thread is that LBS/HP seems to be the sole factor for consideration amongst a certain crowd here. There has been scant mention of the performance impact of increased weight on an identical width wheel/tire combination. Why is that? Is it because the lighter competitors know that it is not in their competitive interest to broach the subject? Or is the assumption that running an extra couple hundred pounds on the same tire sizes is not disadvantageous already? What of braking distances and cornering speeds? These are unaffected by HP in the main yet are brutally penalized by weight increases. This isn't drag racing, right?

As someone currently on the cusp of building an ITS car (or should I say presipice?) this thread sure makes SRF awfully appealing.

Banzai240

09-17-2005, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 18 2005, 02:35 AM
Perhaps the most telling aspect of this thread is that LBS/HP seems to be the sole factor for consideration amongst a certain crowd here. There has been scant mention of the performance impact of increased weight on an identical width wheel/tire combination. Why is that? Is it because the lighter competitors know that it is not in their competitive interest to broach the subject? Or is the assumption that running an extra couple hundred pounds on the same tire sizes is not disadvantageous already? What of braking distances and cornering speeds? These are unaffected by HP in the main yet are brutally penalized by weight increases. This isn't drag racing, right?

60480

Are you KIDDING ME??? How many times do I have to mention that BRAKES, TRANNY RATIOS, SUSPENSION TYPES, ETC., ALLLLLLLLL come into play when making a classification spec recomendation?? This post has lasted for 10..... TEN pages and I'll bet I've had to re-iterate this point at least once per page...

Once again... wt/pwr is used to determine the BASE SPEC WEIGHT... After that is determined, we can then decide if that weight can be realistically reached... If Yes, then we have the right class... After that, We look at specifics and use "Adders" to the weight (+/- weight) to compensate for vehicle specifics...

I just don't know HOW much simpler, or fair this could be...

As for getting ready to build an ITS car... I just don't know WHAT would be stopping you??? The past two seasons have been some of the most exciting in IT, and most of the ITAC believes they are just going to get better... We have more cars classified, newer cars classified, we've moved some traditional underdogs, ITC is gaining some momentum... AND, we finally have a mechanism to fix mistakes when we make them, and possibly to fix mistakes of the past... Everything is happing according to plan... ;)

Hell, competition is already getting tighter, and people seem to be excited...

It's up to you, but if you want to miss out on all this, it's your loss... I'm betting, however, that you aren't going to be able to resist! :023:

(and... SRF??? :119: Hey, if you want to go run around the track in a non-descript car, competing with a bunch of other non-decript cars... all of you with exactly the same equipment, and all running the same lap times... well... maybe I should just keep my thoughts on that to myself... http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_5_3.gif )

Banzai240

09-17-2005, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 18 2005, 01:51 AM
so what numbers are the itac using????

60475

That's easy... we use all of them we can get our hands on... and, we'll compare that to estimates... and, we'll come here and ask you guys... and we'll talk to any experts we may have available... and we'll look at other cars with similiar drivetrains... and ....

We gather all the information we can get, then we make the best decision we can based on that data...

If no data is available, like with a new classification, we use the estimation process that I've been describing for many pages now to come up with what the performance potential is for a car... to date, I doubt we have been off by more than 5hp or so, but even that can make a 50 or 75lbs difference in the final weight...

It's not easy, nor extremely concise, but if we can be consistant, then no ONE car get's treated any differently than the others, and, on average, we should get most very close...

Try it sometime, guys... Let's us know how easy you think it is to get the specs set to the degree of accuracy you guys think it should be, keeping in mind that, for every ONE HP you are off, you could be adding or subtracting a substantial amount of weight from the specs...

Andy Bettencourt

09-17-2005, 11:08 PM

Why doesn't anyone use their real name or provide a proper signature anymore?

We have been provided dyno sheets that show 195. *I* have seen a 215 number on a dynojet for a top 3 ARRC car. I have had people verify 210 all day. Why does nobody jump up and waive their 210whp sheets around? Let's not have to go into the obvious.

Lbs. per hp is NOT the sole factor. I am not sure how many posts you are not reading in this thread but it can't be stated more clearly. It is used as a FOUNDATION for a subjective process that take into account many factors. MANY FACTORS.

Ahhh, the performance issues with increased weight. We understand. We won't be able to balnce our results on a pin-head, but we understand that these things are not linear.

Bottom line for the Bimmer guys? Apples to apples, is there a car that can compete with the E36? Other than the Mercedes (which I REALLY think got classed without REALLY knowing what it was), I submit no - and it's a resounding no. And when you compound the cost of a car like this...many people think it is ruining ITS in some parts of the country.

I have received soooo many PM's during this thread from people who really feel like the BMW guys are more worried about their performance advantages going away than they are about good racing and class equity.

Call up Chet and Larry. Have them post their numbers. James Clay can come on here and publically make a statement, he has before (in a vague way), and they support our numbers.

Competitivness is not guaranteed...but I tell you what, the better of IT is my main priority.

AB

DoubleD

09-17-2005, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 17 2005, 09:54 PM
Are you KIDDING ME??? How many times do I have to mention that BRAKES, TRANNY RATIOS, SUSPENSION TYPES, ETC., ALLLLLLLLL come into play when making a classification spec recomendation?? This post has lasted for 10..... TEN pages and I'll bet I've had to re-iterate this point at least once per page...

No joke. I have read all 10 pages of this thread with the required breaks to wiped my glazed eyes. 10 pages of "the 325 is too light compared to it's curb weight" and "the 325 is too light for the HP it makes in IT trim" is what I see. There was one reply - and only one - that expressed any concern about the effect of additional weight on tire performance. There are dozens, however, that refer to mythical horsepower numbers that are, on one bmw email list, described by bmw racers as being proponed by people "smoking crack".

Further, as you clearly point out in your second reply to my post, 1hp this way or that can make a multiple pound difference. As such, pointing out the difference between 210 and 220 is as important as it is valid. Thank you for helping me to make my point.

In pointing out that the 325 is significantly heavier to begin with I had hoped to highlight that the effect of weight is not linear with respect to performance. The numerous arguments posted here that the 325 is light strictly with respect to curb weight or potential horespower output (whatever it may be) is overly simplistic and ignores significant effects in performance areas other than straight line acceleration. To put a fine point on it, as one of the heavier cars in the class while running on the same tire sizes, it is appropriate that the car be some amount under the "program target" percentage of curb weight.

The cognitive dissonance involved in bashing SRF for all running the same lap times (last SRF race I watched this was not the case, btw) while complaining that the dissimilar cars in ITS are not running the same lap times is...well, Andy Bettencourt was right and we shouldn't delve into the obvious.

As for my looking at SRF: Have you driven one? I have and they're actually a very exciting ride and, despite being very low on horsepower, quite a rush even compared to my E46 M3 race car. And those similar lap times...yeah, close racing sounds really boring, eh?

DoubleD

09-18-2005, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 17 2005, 10:08 PM
Why doesn't anyone use their real name or provide a proper signature anymore?

60485

Andy,

My name is Dave Dillehay. I live just south of Houston, TX. I choose to register as "DoubleD" for two reasons: 1) There is no reason that you or a vast majority of the users on this message board would recognize my name and 2) I am much more recognizable within the BMW internet community as "DoubleD".

DoubleD was a nickname given me because of my initials and fondness for the female form. I had no intention of hiding my identity and, although you could not have known, was in fact revealing it to many by using that name. I have added my name to my signature.

As for the meat of your reply....

First off I'd like to remove James Clay from this discussion. James is someone I consider a friend although we've never met face to face. Asking him to pony up a number is a great disservice to him. That he was vauge in the past is a credit to him. Please keep in mind that he has both business and competitive interests involved in that issue, both of which involve significant sums of money. James could only be hurt by posting a single number, regardless of it being high or low of your expectation.

Second, with respect to your assertion that nobody complains about the weight of a 323, I must take exception. Although I would very much prefer to build an ITS E46 chassis, at 3000 pounds it is a non-starter. That weight on 7 inch wheels strikes me as simply preposterous. I've raced a 3280lbs car on 9.5" wheels and 275mm tires and found that, even in short 30 minute sprints, tire conservation is a significant limiting issue. Trading 10% of the weight for 20% of the tire sounds like a nightmare in reccuring rubber expenditures.

Third, I've long ago learned that I can often come across rather acid in text. I'd like you to know that this post, along with my first, is not intended to be acid...I simply refuse to write a second draft. It is my intent to respectfully yet forcefully express my concerns about over penalizing the BMW's for success. Perhaps ITAC might do well do learn from SWC GT. If 325's get to the 3000lbs mark they'd be few and far between as nobody in their right mind would cut the $7,000 check for an ITS BMW motor that couldn't possibly win.

Banzai240

09-18-2005, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 18 2005, 03:58 AM
In pointing out that the 325 is significantly heavier to begin with I had hoped to highlight that the effect of weight is not linear with respect to performance. The numerous arguments posted here that the 325 is light strictly with respect to curb weight or potential horespower output (whatever it may be) is overly simplistic and ignores significant effects in performance areas other than straight line acceleration.

60486

First off, "Significantly heavier"??? THAN WHAT??? There are ALL KINDS of ITS cars that are in the 2650-3000 range... a couple even more... and NONE of them have the power that this car does... whether it's theoretical or otherwise... I haven't seen ONE number thrown out here to this point that would support it being at 2850lbs...

Your obviously not clearly getting the message here, so let's cut to the chase... NOTHING is being done in an "overly simplistic" way... all factors than can be reasonably dealt with are being taken into consideration... EVERY car is being looked with the same process... therefore, every car is getting equivalent consideration... Additionally, believe it or not, there ARE others out here who are capable of reasoning that adding weight will affect various aspects of performance... BUT, that's the idea... When a car pulls everyone by 6-7 car lengths everytime it enters a straight, and can still brake deep and get through the corner, more than one aspect of it's performance NEEDs to be considered... (6-7 car length story brought to you by some insiders in the CA area who whitnessed said events...)

However, if you'd like to donate the computers, and the F1 engineering team to run them, in order to consider all the factors you think are necessary to get these cars equivalent, then we'd be happy to accept the help...

To say that the car is "right" at 2850 is seriously ignoring any reasonable amount of significant facts on the matter...

Z3_GoCar

09-18-2005, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 17 2005, 10:05 PM
First off, "Significantly heavier"??? THAN WHAT??? There are ALL KINDS of ITS cars that are in the 2650-3000 range... a couple even more... and NONE of them have the power that this car does... whether it's theoretical or otherwise... I haven't seen ONE number thrown out here to this point that would support it being at 2850lbs...

I guess there are two ways to take this. Basicly, I'd assume he means that he wants a better restrictor and keep the weight the same and that has been sugested. The only team that a better restrictor will hurt is the team that spends 10-20k (obviously over exaggerated) on their engine development. If cams are being swindled in to get those kind of hp numbers, then this will render them ineffective. If your car's not developed to the point that it's bumping on all it's potential, the restrictor won't do a thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in building a bimmer too, just not a 325. My main reason for enter this thread was to point out that there's an e36 that's speced at 2840 lbs and would be lucky to make 170hp at the crank with the same drive tran, but I've said enough. Just build your car and have fun, and who knows maybe you'll :smilie_pokal:

James

lateapex911

09-18-2005, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 18 2005, 01:42 AM
I guess there are two ways to take this. Basicly, I'd assume he means that he wants a better restrictor and keep the weight the same and that has been sugested. James

60489

But James, he didn't say that. He said the car would be too heavy for it's tires.

I have to read what people write, not what they might mean, as much sense as that might make, LOL....

lateapex911

09-18-2005, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 17 2005, 10:35 PM
What better thread for a newbie to make his first post in? :119:

While we've been offered a real world dyno showing significantly less, we have not been offered one showing 220. Why is that?

Well, maybe it's because guys in the know feel they'd be selling out their BMW buddies by spilling the beans.

Here are a few examples that I am aware of (numbers related to me or another ITAC member but on the grounds of secrecy):

-A former ARRC top runner, related his HP results, and his discussions of those numbers and potential for growth of those numbers with a top BMW builder.

- A witness to dyno runs of some top cars, also top ARRC runners.

Of course, I can't divulge the source, nor the numbers as I have been asked to keep the details private, but they are FAR north of 195.

Perhaps the most telling aspect of this thread is that LBS/HP seems to be the sole factor for consideration amongst a certain crowd here. There has been scant mention of the performance impact of increased weight on an identical width wheel/tire combination. Why is that?

60480

If you'd like I can go back and quote myself, but I would rather not waste the time unless you need me to. let me know.

The basic point of my earlier comment relative to this was that indeed, any "adders" would be tempered by the fact that the car would be operating at a weight that was getting out of the linear range of the tires response curve, and that factor would be considered. As a member of the ITAC, I can assure you it HAS been mentioned, and it WILL be mentioned again if the subject comes up.

However, lbs /hp IS a significant factor in the "raceability" of any car. And it needs to be close to have good fair racing. But again, it is only a part of the equation.....

Look, from my point of view, and for the gazilllionth time, I want the cars to cross the line in a dead heat, their physical properties equalized, with the difference between cars coming down to prep and drivers. PERIOD!!!

As it stands now I get the feeling that the BMW guys are feeling that their superior tuning and prep work is getting penalized. That is not the case, as the car is superior right out of the box over many, and has a leg up on most after moderate development. I remember a quote from a BMW driver when the restrictor plate issue came up where he expressed dismay that he would have to "actually fully develop" the car to stay at the front.

Sadly, he didn't include an address so that a box of tissues could be sent.

Ron Earp

09-18-2005, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 18 2005, 02:35 AM
As someone currently on the cusp of building an ITS car (or should I say presipice?) this thread sure makes SRF awfully appealing.

60480

Well, you are attracted to the BMW for a reason. And, it would seem that the reason you, and many others I might add, are attracted to it is because it is winning consistantly.

It is winning because it is a total package - good suspension, great brakes, and great motor. Clearly, the car now exceeds the ITS envelope for cars and has become the "car to have", which I submit, is why you are looking at it. And, it is natural for you and others to get defensive when talk abounds of reigning the car in line with the rest of the ITS cars.

Some folks are complaining about weight, others are complaining about having a restrictor. But what else can be done? Force you to run 10" solid disc rotors with some rear drums like I have to use? That'd certainly slow you down.

So, a restrictor or weight makes sense to alter the performance of the car. There are other cars classed at a higher weight in ITS. If the BMW gets a higher weight then tire and brake costs may rise a bit - but the ITAC doesn't guarentee that your car of choice will be competitive nor do they guarentee that your choice will be cheap to run.

Anyone denying that the car is a overdog simply hasn't been passed by a top running BMW, and it might be possible you don't have a top running BMW in your run area. It really doesn't matter how much rear wheel hp it makes - just come down to VIR and watch the top BMWs run away from the field, then, watch them slow down many seconds per lap once comfortably ahead. Watch it happen not just once, but month after month.

This whole thread started because someone asked about an IS300. A car that is identical to the BMW 3 series (at least Toyota thought so). As soon as it was mentioned it immediately drew fire because the 3 series at its current classifcation is an overdog and everyone knows it. To argue otherwise simply means you drive one and don't want any changes or you are ignoring reality.

Bill Miller

09-18-2005, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 17 2005, 10:35 PM
What better thread for a newbie to make his first post in? :119:

There are hundreds of BMWCCA guys who would love to know how to get 220rwhp out of an M50 without cams. If one takes the "best" theoretical driveline loss at peak HP thrown out there (15%) that's 255HP at the flywheel at the peak...notably above the magic 100HP/L mark that BMW enthusiasts have long sought. In reality, the S50 (3.0 motor from the E36 M3) makes just barely more than that on a good day. Further, real world testing has shown the e36's fall into a band of 17%-20% loss at peak, including much newer models like the E46 M3. While we've been offered a real world dyno showing significantly less, we have not been offered one showing 220. Why is that?

Perhaps the most telling aspect of this thread is that LBS/HP seems to be the sole factor for consideration amongst a certain crowd here. There has been scant mention of the performance impact of increased weight on an identical width wheel/tire combination. Why is that? Is it because the lighter competitors know that it is not in their competitive interest to broach the subject? Or is the assumption that running an extra couple hundred pounds on the same tire sizes is not disadvantageous already? What of braking distances and cornering speeds? These are unaffected by HP in the main yet are brutally penalized by weight increases. This isn't drag racing, right?

As someone currently on the cusp of building an ITS car (or should I say presipice?) this thread sure makes SRF awfully appealing.

60480

Dave,

First off, to compare BMWCCA prep levels to a top SCCA ITS E36 prep level, is just not valid. The organizations are different, the drivers are different, the competition level is different, and the prep level is different. So, let's not state the obvious.

Now, let's talk about those HP numbers. We have a person that's posted a RWHP number of 195, from a car, by his own admission, is not a maxed-out development effort. Using your 17-20% driveline loss, that's between 235 and 245 at the crank. Add say 7-10 hp for some additional development, and it's easy to get to tbe North side of 250 HP at the flywheel. But, as has been stated several times, peak hp is not the important number, it's the area under the hp and torque curves. Start comparing those, and see what that shows. Also, I believe Andy, Darin, and Jake have all stated that even at 195 RWHP, the car is too light, based on the process. Knowing that there was HP left on the table w/ that car, only means that the cars are that much more underweight.

As far as why no one's offered up the dyno sheets on a maxed-out effort, that should be pretty obvious. The way it would hurt, is because the true potential of the car would be known, and it would only further reinforce that the car was too light. If there was no way the cars could get lead added, I think you'd see a lot more published data. It would be used for marketing purposes. If James Clay could squeeze 3-5 more HP out of the car, than any of his competitors, don't you think he'd promote that fact? The reason that the folks in the know, aren't posting up the data, is because they know the truth, the car is way under weight for ITS. Me personally, I'd like to see ITR added above ITS. Cut the weight of the E36 to 2700# (maybe 2600#), and move it up to ITR. Throw some other cars in there, like the IS-300 mentioned in the thread title, the 2.7 and 3.0 liter 911s, E30 M3 (hell, even the E36 M3), C280 M-B, etc., etc., etc. and let them have at it.

The real issue here is, a bunch of folks picked an overdog car, and like being able to run up front, either w/o a maxed-out development effort, or w/ less than top-notch driving skills.

And if you're worried about tire/brake wear, the answer is simple, don't over-drive the car. There are plenty of cars in ITB/C that are on the North side of 2700#, that have to run on 6" wheels. They seem to get by. And you've got plenty of examples where there is almost 1000# weight difference between some of the cars.

DoubleD

09-18-2005, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by rlearp@Sep 18 2005, 05:51 AM
Well, you are attracted to the BMW for a reason. And, it would seem that the reason you, and many others I might add, are attracted to it is because it is winning consistantly.

It is winning because it is a total package - good suspension, great brakes, and great motor. Clearly, the car now exceeds the ITS envelope for cars and has become the "car to have", which I submit, is why you are looking at it. And, it is natural for you and others to get defensive when talk abounds of reigning the car in line with the rest of the ITS cars.

Some folks are complaining about weight, others are complaining about having a restrictor. But what else can be done? Force you to run 10" solid disc rotors with some rear drums like I have to use? That'd certainly slow you down.

So, a restrictor or weight makes sense to alter the performance of the car. There are other cars classed at a higher weight in ITS. If the BMW gets a higher weight then tire and brake costs may rise a bit - but the ITAC doesn't guarentee that your car of choice will be competitive nor do they guarentee that your choice will be cheap to run.

Anyone denying that the car is a overdog simply hasn't been passed by a top running BMW, and it might be possible you don't have a top running BMW in your run area. It really doesn't matter how much rear wheel hp it makes - just come down to VIR and watch the top BMWs run away from the field, then, watch them slow down many seconds per lap once comfortably ahead. Watch it happen not just once, but month after month.

This whole thread started because someone asked about an IS300. A car that is identical to the BMW 3 series (at least Toyota thought so). As soon as it was mentioned it immediately drew fire because the 3 series at its current classifcation is an overdog and everyone knows it. To argue otherwise simply means you drive one and don't want any changes or you are ignoring reality.

60493

I'm attracted to the BMW because it's what I know. I know where to get a donor car, parts, possibly a little sponsorship, etc. I'd also have a chance to race it 6 or more times per year without towing all over creation which is a major consideration for me. And yes, I want to build a car that will provide me an opportunity to win a couple seasons down the road. I guess wanting to build a car that has a good shot at winning makes me unique in SCCA.

I'm not saying that the car isn't an overdog in the class. I'm saying that adding hundreds of pounds to the car (and someone has mentioned 3200lbs!) will make it a complete dog. I can see that is exactly what some folks want though.

Catch22

09-18-2005, 10:59 AM

And maybe that Integra is cheating?
Or maybe those are Slow BMWs?

Whats the ITS record at Summit?
Thats the important question. Not "Who beat whom" on a given day.

The type of dyno is unimportant as they are all different. Then throw in weather conditions, calibrations, operators... And you have a crap shoot.
What is important and useful is comparing cars from the same dyno, preferably the same day and even time of day. When you see me comparing cars, thats what I'm doing.
You will never see me compare numbers from an Integra on a Mustang Dyno in February to a BMW on a Dynojet in July. Thats just stupid.
I've heard of ITA CRXs that get "Over 130whp" on a dyno down in Florida. Then they come to Road Atlanta and get waxed by other ITA CRXs that get "about 120" on a dyno in Atlanta.

So pick a dyno, any dyno. Doesn't matter. Jast make sure that when you compare cars its from that same dyno.

DoubleD

09-18-2005, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 18 2005, 12:42 AM
the team that spends 10-20k (obviously over exaggerated) on their engine development.
James

60489

Not exagerated at all! Give Sunbelt a call and ask him what the price of a complete ITS motor is. The range is $7,000 to $13,000. Add to that 3K in intake and exhaust components as a minimum. Engine management can easily cost another 3K. It is impossible to build a fully developed E36 325 engine package for under 13 and it's easy to spend 20.

DoubleD

09-18-2005, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 18 2005, 09:33 AM
Dave,

First off, to compare BMWCCA prep levels to a top SCCA ITS E36 prep level, is just not valid. The organizations are different, the drivers are different, the competition level is different, and the prep level is different. So, let's not state the obvious.

Now, let's talk about those HP numbers. We have a person that's posted a RWHP number of 195, from a car, by his own admission, is not a maxed-out development effort. Using your 17-20% driveline loss, that's between 235 and 245 at the crank. Add say 7-10 hp for some additional development, and it's easy to get to tbe North side of 250 HP at the flywheel. But, as has been stated several times, peak hp is not the important number, it's the area under the hp and torque curves. Start comparing those, and see what that shows. Also, I believe Andy, Darin, and Jake have all stated that even at 195 RWHP, the car is too light, based on the process. Knowing that there was HP left on the table w/ that car, only means that the cars are that much more underweight.

As far as why no one's offered up the dyno sheets on a maxed-out effort, that should be pretty obvious. The way it would hurt, is because the true potential of the car would be known, and it would only further reinforce that the car was too light. If there was no way the cars could get lead added, I think you'd see a lot more published data. It would be used for marketing purposes. If James Clay could squeeze 3-5 more HP out of the car, than any of his competitors, don't you think he'd promote that fact? The reason that the folks in the know, aren't posting up the data, is because they know the truth, the car is way under weight for ITS. Me personally, I'd like to see ITR added above ITS. Cut the weight of the E36 to 2700# (maybe 2600#), and move it up to ITR. Throw some other cars in there, like the IS-300 mentioned in the thread title, the 2.7 and 3.0 liter 911s, E30 M3 (hell, even the E36 M3), C280 M-B, etc., etc., etc. and let them have at it.

The real issue here is, a bunch of folks picked an overdog car, and like being able to run up front, either w/o a maxed-out development effort, or w/ less than top-notch driving skills.

And if you're worried about tire/brake wear, the answer is simple, don't over-drive the car. There are plenty of cars in ITB/C that are on the North side of 2700#, that have to run on 6" wheels. They seem to get by. And you've got plenty of examples where there is almost 1000# weight difference between some of the cars.

60496

Bill,

I'm not trying to compare the prep levels. You're right that the organizations are significantly different. I'm pointing out that people who eat, sleep, and dream BMW engines know that the numbers being tossed around simply aren't happening. Please note that I have not claimed that 195rwhp is the max you're going to see...only that 220 is a pipe dream...or some good marketing.

There's another reason that numbers may not be provided. Perhaps they are not as big as people think and the builders don't want to publish that their engines don't make as much power as people think the other guy's does. Publishing a number like that would be somewhat detrimental to business, don't you think? Further, what advantage is there for an owner to let his competitors know what they need to shoot for? It is racing after all.

I will say this unequivocally: Secret numbers witnessed by secret ITAC members one time on one car on one dyno on one day is not my idea of a firm basis upon which to write, or in this casse rewrite, rules.

-DD

Banzai240

09-18-2005, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by DoubleD+Sep 18 2005, 03:22 PM-->
I will say this unequivocally: Secret numbers witnessed by secret ITAC members one time on one car on one dyno on one day is not my idea of a firm basis upon which to write, or in this casse rewrite, rules.

-DD

60500
[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@ Sep 17 2005
That's easy... we use all of them we can get our hands on... and, we'll compare that to estimates... and, we'll come here and ask you guys... and we'll talk to any experts we may have available... and we'll look at other cars with similiar drivetrains... and ....

We gather all the information we can get, then we make the best decision we can based on that data...

I give up.... :blink:

Andy Bettencourt

09-18-2005, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 18 2005, 10:22 AM
I will say this unequivocally: Secret numbers witnessed by secret ITAC members one time on one car on one dyno on one day is not my idea of a firm basis upon which to write, or in this casse rewrite, rules.

-DD

60500

Me either. If you read the posts and think that is what is happening, then this is a hopeless debate.

BTW: I just got a quote of $9000 for a 100% build on a ITA Miata motor with full engine management. Costs are getting CRAZY.

Nobody wants the BMW to be a dog. What we want is for it to be a fair fight week in and week out at the track. What proof do you have that 3200 would send the car to the back of the pack?

BOTTOM LINE? The IS300 is TOO MUCH for ITS. :happy204:

The BMW guys and the rest of IT just won't come to terms on this one...

AB

lateapex911

09-18-2005, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 18 2005, 10:57 AM
.

I'm not saying that the car isn't an overdog in the class. I'm saying that adding hundreds of pounds to the car (and someone has mentioned 3200lbs!) will make it a complete dog. I can see that is exactly what some folks want though.

60497

Well, congratulations on being the first of the E36 guys to not ignore the overdog status....not that you said it IS an overdog, LOL....

But.....the second half of you statement requires clarification. Specifically, WHO wants the car to be a complete dog???

You need to respond with a statement that either includes the ITAC posters here, (Darin, Andy and myself) or excludes us, at the least, or better yet provide the quote that caused you to come to that conclusion..

I have read this thread and though it's long, I remember nobody.....ITAC or not, expressing ANY comment that they want the car to be a "complete dog".

Don't pull the old "Well if you want it to run at 3200 pounds it will be a dog, so therefore, you want it to be a dog" logic trick, because it has been explained over and over again how the process works and some of the options available. The mere fact that the guys on the ITAC are even spending the time debating and posting here is a good indication of the desire to discuss and understand...

But, except for you David, all I have gotten from the E36 camp is denial and spin.

There IS a problem, and it NEEDs to be addressed. To the E36 guys, you've been given a chance to be a part of the process, but you're not helping your case by standing by in denial.

All my previous comments that I thought were constructive have gone totally ignored, but like Jeff, I willl be press on and try again.

To the E36 guys, name a weight that you think will result in fair racing. ANY weight....BUT...back it up with the math. Show us WHY you chose that weight. You've been given lots of background info...lets talk turkey here.

Or........suggest another option. Provide the concrete reasons for that approach.

Knestis

09-18-2005, 03:38 PM

As ex-Captain of the SCCA black helicopter spotters squad, I have to state - as clearly as possible - that I have NEVER seen more transparency, repeatability, or apparent equity in treatment of different makes/models as we are currently seeing in the ITAC's efforts.

Second - I'm pretty appalled at the relutctance of folks who appear to have a vested interest in the e36 325 to even CONSIDER the sporting implications of the situation. People who finish up front in cars that they admit aren't built to the letter of the rules, complaining that all of their efforts are being undermined. People playing the safety card to argue against making their cars slower. I'm really left feeling like there's a lot of feelings of entitlement out there.

What kind of a freak am I, that when the outclassed-in-ITA Hondas got moved to B, I thought it was a GOOD thing? More people to race with, more options from which potential entrants might choose...

K

lateapex911

09-18-2005, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Sep 18 2005, 03:38 PM
As ex-Captain of the SCCA black helicopter spotters squad, I have to state - as clearly as possible - that I have NEVER seen more transparency, repeatability, or apparent equity in treatment of different makes/models as we are currently seeing in the ITAC's efforts.

Second - I'm pretty appalled at the relutctance of folks who appear to have a vested interest in the e36 325 to even CONSIDER the sporting implications of the situation. People who finish up front in cars that they admit aren't built to the letter of the rules, complaining that all of their efforts are being undermined. People playing the safety card to argue against making their cars slower. I'm really left feeling like there's a lot of feelings of entitlement out there.

What kind of a freak am I, that when the outclassed-in-ITA Hondas got moved to B, I thought it was a GOOD thing? More people to race with, more options from which potential entrants might choose...

K

60504

To the first paragraph, thanks. I am sure the rest of the ITAC would agree that if you see progess, then we are on the right path...

As to the second paragraph, BINGO! I too am amazed at the complete head in the sand approach...esp when the offer has been made to listen to suggestions from the E36 camp.

On the third paragraph, you are not a freak at all, just a gentleman racer.....

(I can understand trying to retain hard fought turf, but the numbers show the turf should not have needed much fighting to get, and besides, nobody is ripping it away...)

mlytle

09-18-2005, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 18 2005, 05:29 PM

But, except for you David, all I have gotten from the E36 camp is denial and spin.

There IS a problem, and it NEEDs to be addressed. To the E36 guys, you've been given a chance to be a part of the process, but you're not helping your case by standing by in denial.

All my previous comments that I thought were constructive have gone totally ignored, but like Jeff, I willl be press on and try again.

60503

gotta love selective, filtered hearing. sheesh. any point an e36 person makes on this board is immediately discarded.

some denial? of course! all we see are bs hp numbers flying around and being used to justify a higher weight. i see claims that all factors are considered in classifying cars, but then in the same para it says. hp/weight targets are used to determine weight, no other factors. wtf??? the term garbage in, garbage out applies here.

if i knew it would actually be used (and not tossed out like the rest of reality) i would fax in my dyno sheets. engine built by one of the top bmw engine builders in the country as a top of the line its engine. engine personnally tuned on a dyno with and without restrictor by the same person. rwhp is south of 195. as double d has said, discussions in the bmw community pretty much agree that rwhp numbers that are being claimed by the itac are not possible without hot camshafts, bigger injectors, etc.

and the bmw's that were running that race with the integra at summit? NOT slow. one of the cars is the same one that set the track record before the restrictors were added. you just assume the integra may have been cheating? the owner driver is a very sharp guy who wouldn't do that. we have a pretty tight group running its in marrs...across all types of cars.

and the track record at watkins glenn was held by a pre-restrictor bmw that was very fast with a great driver. that record was eclipsed handily by an rx7 this summer. the ex-record holder quit its when the restrictor plates came out. he has since turned his car into a bmw cr prepared rule car. what that means is he added hot cams, bigger injectors, 17in wheels, bigger brakes, splitter and wing. only then was he able to run laps faster than the its rx7 did this year. hmmmm.

my suggested solution? if you don't like us that much just make another it class and dump us in it. i will happily go elsewhere at this point. every rule/restrictor/weight change costs $,$$$ to whatever car is effected, bmw or not. maybe changing every 3-5 years is reasonable with changing car technology, but changing the rules of the game for the same car multiple years in a row is UNACCEPTABLE. feel like the restrictor didn't reduce the hp enough? how can you tell after just one season, especially if the itac ignores actual race results? leave it alone for a few years. change a few other cars this year. see what happens. or just move us somewhere else. dicing it up with 240z's, acura's and mazda's is fun, but there are more than enough bmw's around to have fun by ourselves.

alternative to moving us? the sir concept is interesting alternative to the SAFETY (that was specificaly for you K) and cost implications of more weight. anybody know a good source of info on how it works? if they work, why not specify one for every car in its? that way nobody could cheat above a certain hp spec'd for thier car...it would certainly cap engine development costs...

marshall

robits325is

09-18-2005, 04:54 PM

lateapex911

09-18-2005, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 18 2005, 04:37 PM
i see claims that all factors are considered in classifying cars, but then in the same para it says. hp/weight targets are used to determine weight, no other factors. wtf??? the term garbage in, garbage out applies here.

can you hit the "quote" button on the referrenced paragraph and show it? I don't think I wrote such a thing, but would appreciate the chance to clear it up if I did. I don't think either of the other guys did, but there have been a lot of posts here...

........ rwhp is south of 195. as double d has said, discussions in the bmw community pretty much agree that rwhp numbers that are being claimed by the itac are not possible without hot camshafts, bigger injectors, etc.

OK, another data point, this one <195 whp.

my suggested solution? if you don't like us that much just make another it class and dump us in it. i will happily go elsewhere at this point. every rule/restrictor/weight change costs $,$$$ to whatever car is effected, bmw or not. maybe changing every 3-5 years is reasonable with changing car technology, but changing the rules of the game for the same car multiple years in a row is UNACCEPTABLE. feel like the restrictor didn't reduce the hp enough? how can you tell after just one season, especially if the itac ignores actual race results? leave it alone for a few years. change a few other cars this year. see what happens. or just move us somewhere else. dicing it up with 240z's, acura's and mazda's is fun, but there are more than enough bmw's around to have fun by ourselves.

alternative to moving us? the sir concept is interesting alternative to the SAFETY (that was specificaly for you K) and cost implications of more weight. anybody know a good source of info on how it works? if they work, why not specify one for every car in its? that way nobody could cheat above a certain hp spec'd for thier car...it would certainly cap engine development costs...

marshall

60506

NOW we're getting somewhere....

Trust me, "Liking" you (all) has NOTHING to do with it. Geting the classes organized has EVERYTHING to do with it.

If you like dicing with other cars, then thats the goal of the ITAC....we're just trying to do it in the best way possible, with the least disturbance to the E36 guys, as well as the rest of the class. For as little cost as possible. We are TRYING to look at the big picture.

So, a question then, what number do you think is the ultimate potential whp for the best configuration of an E36?

mlytle

09-18-2005, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 18 2005, 09:47 PM

So, a question then, what number do you think is the ultimate potential whp for the best configuration of an E36?

60509

on what dyno? as in, what dyno is producing the numbers that the "benchmark cars" are being classed at? unless the equipment and conditions are the same, picking numbers is useless. i guess that may be the beauty of putting sir's on ALL cars. if they truly act as described in several posts, then we have a known limit on at least one end of the equation.

Bill Miller

09-18-2005, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 18 2005, 04:37 PM
gotta love selective, filtered hearing. sheesh. any point an e36 person makes on this board is immediately discarded.

some denial? of course! all we see are bs hp numbers flying around and being used to justify a higher weight. i see claims that all factors are considered in classifying cars, but then in the same para it says. hp/weight targets are used to determine weight, no other factors. wtf??? the term garbage in, garbage out applies here.

if i knew it would actually be used (and not tossed out like the rest of reality) i would fax in my dyno sheets. engine built by one of the top bmw engine builders in the country as a top of the line its engine. engine personnally tuned on a dyno with and without restrictor by the same person. rwhp is south of 195. as double d has said, discussions in the bmw community pretty much agree that rwhp numbers that are being claimed by the itac are not possible without hot camshafts, bigger injectors, etc.

Marshall, one of your own has stated that those were his numbers, on a non-Motec car. He's admitted that he's left HP on the table. While I know numbers vary from day to day, and from dyno to dyno, those are numbers that one of the E36 folks has submitted. Nobody's making those up.

and the bmw's that were running that race with the integra at summit? NOT slow. one of the cars is the same one that set the track record before the restrictors were added. you just assume the integra may have been cheating? the owner driver is a very sharp guy who wouldn't do that. we have a pretty tight group running its in marrs...across all types of cars.

and the track record at watkins glenn was held by a pre-restrictor bmw that was very fast with a great driver. that record was eclipsed handily by an rx7 this summer. the ex-record holder quit its when the restrictor plates came out. he has since turned his car into a bmw cr prepared rule car. what that means is he added hot cams, bigger injectors, 17in wheels, bigger brakes, splitter and wing. only then was he able to run laps faster than the its rx7 did this year. hmmmm.

Sure must not have gotten much HP/speed, for all the money he spent. And just like dyno data vary day by day, so do lap times. And to quit just because a restrictor was added? Kinda confirms the earlier comment about a sense of entitlement.

my suggested solution? if you don't like us that much just make another it class and dump us in it. i will happily go elsewhere at this point. every rule/restrictor/weight change costs $,$$$ to whatever car is effected, bmw or not. maybe changing every 3-5 years is reasonable with changing car technology, but changing the rules of the game for the same car multiple years in a row is UNACCEPTABLE. feel like the restrictor didn't reduce the hp enough? how can you tell after just one season, especially if the itac ignores actual race results? leave it alone for a few years. change a few other cars this year. see what happens. or just move us somewhere else. dicing it up with 240z's, acura's and mazda's is fun, but there are more than enough bmw's around to have fun by ourselves.

Sounds like you'd rather race w/ BMWCCA.

alternative to moving us? the sir concept is interesting alternative to the SAFETY (that was specificaly for you K) and cost implications of more weight. anybody know a good source of info on how it works? if they work, why not specify one for every car in its? that way nobody could cheat above a certain hp spec'd for thier car...it would certainly cap engine development costs...

marshall

60506

The safety card, in this case, is totally weak, and has no supporting data. There are other cars, classed heavier than the E36 325, and w/ smaller brakes. They seem to get by. Oh, and as I said before, it's YOUR responsibility to not overdrive your car! BTW, I agree w/ Kirk. A big :023: to the ITAC, and how they've changed things over the last 2 years. I've been convinced that the 'give it a chance to work' approach is working. Nice job you guys! (Ok, nobody faint!). :happy204:

Andy Bettencourt

09-18-2005, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 18 2005, 03:37 PM
gotta love selective, filtered hearing. sheesh. any point an e36 person makes on this board is immediately discarded.

BS. Your opinion counts, it is just one though. And your assertion that 210 whp is unobtainable is just rediculous. I have seen a 10whp spread on Speedsource 13B's right out of the box. I have seen a 6whp difference in Spec Miata CRATE motors out of the box. Is it possible you haven't seen the best of the best?

some denial? of course! all we see are bs hp numbers flying around and being used to justify a higher weight. i see claims that all factors are considered in classifying cars, but then in the same para it says. hp/weight targets are used to determine weight, no other factors. wtf??? the term garbage in, garbage out applies here.

Perfect example of you reading only what you want to. NO OTHER FACTORS? Are you joking?

and the track record at watkins glenn was held by a pre-restrictor bmw that was very fast with a great driver. that record was eclipsed handily by an rx7 this summer. the ex-record holder quit its when the restrictor plates came out. he has since turned his car into a bmw cr prepared rule car. what that means is he added hot cams, bigger injectors, 17in wheels, bigger brakes, splitter and wing. only then was he able to run laps faster than the its rx7 did this year. hmmmm.

Name the driver and car. We broke the long course track record in the fall of 2004 and then re-broke it this year. At that same fall event in 2004, a 944S was also under the record but Leverone was faster.

my suggested solution? if you don't like us that much just make another it class and dump us in it. i will happily go elsewhere at this point. every rule/restrictor/weight change costs $,$$$ to whatever car is effected, bmw or not. maybe changing every 3-5 years is reasonable with changing car technology, but changing the rules of the game for the same car multiple years in a row is UNACCEPTABLE. feel like the restrictor didn't reduce the hp enough? how can you tell after just one season, especially if the itac ignores actual race results? leave it alone for a few years. change a few other cars this year. see what happens. or just move us somewhere else. dicing it up with 240z's, acura's and mazda's is fun, but there are more than enough bmw's around to have fun by ourselves.

alternative to moving us? the sir concept is interesting alternative to the SAFETY (that was specificaly for you K) and cost implications of more weight. anybody know a good source of info on how it works? if they work, why not specify one for every car in its? that way nobody could cheat above a certain hp spec'd for thier car...it would certainly cap engine development costs...

marshall

60506

I really can't get a handle on your postion Marshall. In one breath you say that you don't make the HP we have proof of, then you seem to accept the concept of an SIR as a means of realing the cars back in. To be fair, what crank hp would you think is accurate to use as a BASIS for a minimum weight in the E36?

You are 100% right that the money needed to stay up front sucks. It does suck that the Bimmer guys have had to 'develop' again due to the RP...but it was an attempt at parity. One that was needed. The jury is still out on what effect the RP's have had. We have had info that says it killed power and we have had info that says with some creativity within the rules (legal), the RP's mean nothing.

I would like to ask Bruce, Driscoll and Marshall these questions:

What crank HP should we use as the BEST of the BEST?
What weight is fair?
Would you like to eliminate and RP technology (SIR of flat plate)?
Do you think the E36 is THE car to have given equal prep and equal driving?
What kind of power do you think Clay's, Chet's, Stepp's cars made? They all passed teardown...give me a number.

*My* goal for ITS is a class like the other classes in IT, especially ITA and ITB where there are at least 4 marques that have a legitimate shot at a checker. With a straight face, can you tell me any other car that has a chance at the ARRC for the win barring a racing incident or mechanical?

I am using these questions to get your official positions for the record. It will help the rest of the group understand better.

AB

DoubleD

09-18-2005, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Sep 18 2005, 07:46 PM-->
The jury is still out on what effect the RP's have had.
[/b]

And yet you're a proponent of more changes? You don't know if your last change worked or not but you want to make ANOTHER?

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Sep 18 2005, 07:46 PM
I would like to ask Bruce, Driscoll and Marshall these questions:

What kind of power do you think Clay's, Chet's, Stepp's cars made? They all passed teardown...give me a number.

I am using these questions to get your official positions for the record. It will help the rest of the group understand better.

AB

60515

Using someone's guess at these items is a horrible, horrible way to go about collecting data. Is this really how ITAC is collecting data?

you want him to guess at what HP Clay's car had as part of an official record?

I'd like YOUR responses for the record on the questions above.

mlytle

09-18-2005, 09:56 PM

let's see...too many quotes to quote so let me try in order..

bill miller's stuff..
-the bs numbers i am refering too are the 217 -220 whp ones. bruce's 195 number is in line with several other good cars i know of. my example is that one of the top guys did my engine and those were the results.
-vince leo was the glen record holder i was refering to. he didn't quit because of the restrictor plate. i didn't say that he did. rereading my post you could read it that way though. i meant he quit around the time the rp's came out.
-no, i wouldn't rather race with bmwcca. their rules are all over the map and i believe the quality of the average driver is lower. i liked scca because of the rules stability. i drive a bmw not because of any perception that it is the killer car to have. i happen to have been driving bmw's for over 30 years. i just like them. didn't matter if it was fast or not, i never considered anything else.
-the safety card is not bs or unsupported. there are bulletins out in the bmw racing world about the weakness of the parts i mentioned. they fail without warning no matter how often you check them. common sense says significant extra weight puts more stress on these already edgy suspension parts. there are ways recommended to beef up these areas, but they are not allowed in it rules.
-and i don't object to the efforts of the itac to change stuff. i just object to inflicting more pain than necessary on one car with multiple changes and the lack of public knowledge of the process they are using.

andy b's stuff..
-your opening line an example of the problem i stated.
btw - i have drag raced ed york's car on starts. (he had faster lap times than chet at the arrc and at vir) and he doesn't run away. now go look at the dyno info on my car. (his 20+ years of racing kills me in the corners, but that isn't relevant to this.. :) ) if the best of the best was making 30 more rwhp than i am, like some of the claims on this board, he would be out of sight before i got to turn one.

-see info above regarding the glenn. oh, and a 944 has gone faster than the bmw too? nice. good data. now we should have bmw, mazda and porsche outliers. and congrats again on the rx7 efforts! you guys have done an awesome job.
- my positions on the hp claims and the sir are not contradictory. the claims are bs and sir's may be a way to help prove that. i don't know a lot about sir's but they seem like a decent way to cap ALL cars hp. no more worrying about who has an illegal cam (except rotaries, of course!). do what ever to the motor, it can only suck enough air for xxx hp. is that how they work?
-money to stay up front is part of the game, but only if that money is to try something new by your choice. money to stay in the game that is legislated on you by continuous rule changes SUCKS.

the questions...
1/ i don't know. how is it measured? what is the driveline loss? what kind of dyno? can this data also be provided accurately for ALL cars? don't be whining about one marque of cars hp if the same level of data isn't provided for all cars.
2/ 2850. bmwcca cr races these cars at 2900, but they are allowed to reinforce the weak areas.
3/ no. i have said it several times now. investigate expanding to ALL cars, not just bmw's.
4/ no, but i like them (see above in the bill section).
5/ see number one.

now, how about asking those SAME questions to owners of every kind of car?

marshall

Andy Bettencourt

09-18-2005, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 18 2005, 08:38 PM
And yet you're a proponent of more changes? You don't know if your last change worked or not but you want to make ANOTHER?
Using someone's guess at these items is a horrible, horrible way to go about collecting data. Is this really how ITAC is collecting data?

you want him to guess at what HP Clay's car had as part of an official record?

I'd like YOUR responses for the record on the questions above.

60516

I am NOT a proponent of ADDITIONAL changes. I am a proponent of working the E36 into the same 'system' that most everything else is in - especially since it is the dominant car. Simple really. Having said that, we just made a SLEW of recommended changes. The E36 was NOT a car among them. Why? The CRB decided on a RP for 2005 and we need to let it run it's course and then evaluate. Most of the data to date shows the potential for no restriction.

I am not using the info as a DATA point, but trying to get these racers to go ON THE RECORD as to what they think so we can understand what fact their opinions are based in. This will help everyone qualify their positions.

I will post my answers after they do. I don't want to taint their responses, if they so choose to do so.

AB

Andy Bettencourt

09-18-2005, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 18 2005, 08:56 PM
the questions...
1/ i don't know. how is it measured? what is the driveline loss? what kind of dyno? can this data also be provided accurately for ALL cars? don't be whining about one marque of cars hp if the same level of data isn't provided for all cars.
2/ 2850. bmwcca cr races these cars at 2900, but they are allowed to reinforce the weak areas.
3/ no. i have said it several times now. investigate expanding to ALL cars, not just bmw's.
4/ no, but i like them (see above in the bill section).
5/ see number one.
marshall

60517

1. I asked for crank hp, no ideas?
2. What does the BMWCCA weight have to do with anything? Do they race against 20 other brands in the same class?
3. As do I. The technology is excellent.
4. Gotcha.
5. Understood. I use 18% for a RWD car as a general rule. Dynojet is also the standard I use but we can make comparisons to other types based on the info we have available to us. We have dyno and crank numbers for many of the top ITS cars. The CRB leison the ITAC RUNS a dyno. No whining, the info is there.

- and THANK YOU for answering. It's important for everyone to know where we all stand to make credibility judgements.

AB

SPiFF

09-18-2005, 10:21 PM

Sheesh .. I am not sure if all this BMW hating should make me laugh of cry. :119:

Looking back in 5 years, classing the BMW is the best thing that could have happened to S. Much like putting the CRX into A.

You guys should stop trying to kill the BMW and drop the weighs of the other cars by 100# or so. Then class some new cars-- IS/GS/CS300, Supra/NA, 300XZ/NA, E30M3, Integra Type-R, RSX Type-S, TSX, Celica GTS, etc.

Andy Bettencourt

09-18-2005, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by SPiFF@Sep 18 2005, 09:21 PM
Sheesh .. I am not sure if all this BMW hating should make me laugh of cry. :119:

Looking back in 5 years, classing the BMW is the best thing that could have happened to S. Much like putting the CRX into A.

You guys should stop trying to kill the BMW and drop the weighs of the other cars by 100# or so. Then class some new cars-- IS/GS/CS300, Supra/NA, 300XZ/NA, E30M3, Integra Type-R, RSX Type-S, TSX, Celica GTS, etc.

60520

Then you have the SAME issue. What would a 222hp 300ZX have to weigh to FIT into ITS? 52 more hp than a GSR with over 90 more ft of torque - just to start?

I would love to class these cars...above ITS...

And seriously, any non-BMW drivers out there see this as "BMW-hating" and an attempt to "kill" the E36? If you do, I have failed in my ability to relay my impartiality, the process, the factors, etc.

:unsure: I'll let ya'll finish this one up.

AB

Bill Miller

09-18-2005, 10:51 PM

the bs numbers i am refering too are the 217 -220 whp ones. bruce's 195 number is in line with several other good cars i know of. my example is that one of the top guys did my engine and those were the results

Marshall,

You stated that your engine was done by a top builder, as a top of the line motor. Bruce has stated that his car is less than that. If you're making less than 195 WHP, but your builder is selling you a 'top of the line motor', may I suggest that someone is shining you on?

But let's look at this another way. I'll ask this of Andy, Darin, or Jake. Based on the process, what would the WHP of the E36 be, if you started w/ the 2850# spec weight, and worked it backwards to get the hp out of it? Take all the adders out of the equation, and what weight are you at, vs what the target lb/hp ratio is? Now, work it forward, starting w/ 205 WHP.

Thanks

Catch22

09-19-2005, 12:16 AM

Oh, I understand exactly what you guys are doing Andy, and its a fine job.

Its just a matter of philosophy. Guys like Zsolt (spiff) would like to see cars like the GSR accepted as the LOW point of the class spec, not the mid point as Darin pointed out above.
Drop it down to bare bones weight (under 2550) and then weight the BMW, 944S, IS300, etc., etc. based on that.
Really, if cars like the 240z, GSR, and RX7 are the low point of the spec range, not the mid, THEN you CAN reasonably add some newer cars at a realistic weight and the BMW doesn't look like a 3200 pounder on paper.

But this philosophy accepts that you are obsoleting some older cars. Not just obsoleting them, but basically ignoring them. Its the "Look, you guys can run these Jensen Healeys if you want to, but you're on your own. We're moving on."

Some would agree that progress marches on and this isnt such a bad thing. Others would argue that the club needs to continue to make every effort to keep as many cars as possible reasonably within a competitive range. This approach means that newer cars are almost ALWAYS going to be ballasted to high heaven.

Again, its not a matter of right or wrong. Its a matter of perspective and philosophy.

For the "current" ITS, the IS300 is too fast.
But for an ITS with 2525lb Integras, 2575lb RX7s and 2900lb BMWs... Maybe the IS300 fits...

See what I'm saying?
Hope so, I can't figure out how to put it any better than that.

Scott, who admits he'd rather see less ballast and more progress, but understands why thats not so easy to do.

Andy Bettencourt

09-19-2005, 07:08 AM

Scott,

I understand your philosophy and agree to a certain extent. If I were king, I would try to keep most cars in the 'middle' and add new class of cars as demand dictated. ITR, if you will.

AB

Ron Earp

09-19-2005, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 19 2005, 04:16 AM
But this philosophy accepts that you are obsoleting some older cars. Not just obsoleting them, but basically ignoring them. Its the "Look, you guys can run these Jensen Healeys if you want to, but you're on your own. We're moving on."

Some would agree that progress marches on and this isnt such a bad thing. Others would argue that the club needs to continue to make every effort to keep as many cars as possible reasonably within a competitive range. This approach means that newer cars are almost ALWAYS going to be ballasted to high heaven.
For the "current" ITS, the IS300 is too fast.

60526

Won't hurt the Jensen Healey at all IMHO. If you're lowering curb weights then it can do down too - at 2240lbs it weighs more than a street trim JH. So, stick it down around 2000lbs and it'll be just fine. And while we're at it, fix another car I own half of that is screwed up in weight - a 260z. It does not deserve a 200lb weight penalty over the 240z when it has to wear those heinous non-power producing carbs for a measley 150ccs of displacement with lower compression.

A runs with S on the track and A has some light cars too, so I wouldn't be so concerned about the heavier and lighter cars issue.

Ron

zracre

09-19-2005, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by rlearp@Sep 19 2005, 07:38 AM
Won't hurt the Jensen Healey at all IMHO. If you're lowering curb weights then it can do down too - at 2240lbs it weighs more than a street trim JH. So, stick it down around 2000lbs and it'll be just fine. And while we're at it, fix another car I own half of that is screwed up in weight - a 260z. It does not deserve a 200lb weight penalty over the 240z when it has to wear those heinous non-power producing carbs for a measley 150ccs of displacement with lower compression.

A runs with S on the track and A has some light cars too, so I wouldn't be so concerned about the heavier and lighter cars issue.

Ron

60530

I totally agree....this forum is for discussion and throwing ideas around...no matter how minute or drastic...so here is another 2 cents ...
I agree the 260z is too heavy...i tried it and the carbs restrict the power below the 240...weight doesnt seem to be a factor considering the new beetle weight compared to others in its class soo...
put the BMW at 3050, let it run ITS (it will STILL be competitive w/o restrictor) and start ITR (as said above...sorry not good with quotes yet) with the 300zx (heavy anyways) IS300 supra rsx and all the newer cars +200hp and the beemer at its current weight w/o restrictor. Then shift run groups accordingly...maybe ITA ITB ITC SSB SSC , ITS ITR EP and a few GT classes , SM and small bore prod classes etc...just an idea being tossed into the ring!! B)

lateapex911

09-19-2005, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by zracre@Sep 19 2005, 07:51 AM
I totally agree....this forum is for discussion and throwing ideas around...no matter how minute or drastic...so here is another 2 cents ...
I agree the 260z is too heavy........ and start ITR (as said above...sorry not good with quotes yet) with the 300zx (heavy anyways) IS300 supra rsx and all the newer cars +200hp and the beemer at its current weight w/o restrictor. Then shift run groups accordingly...

60531

First, for those of you who can read between the lines, hold your breath, the gears are turning. That's not to say any of it will come to pass, but....well, lets' just say this forum might get a lot busier discussing things like the Z cars a bit down the road.

Second, I too like the idea of a class above S, but I don't like the idea of adding yet another class.....if nobody bothers to run it.

On the other hand, history shows that at one time there was an ITD in areas I guess, but time marches on and as far as I know, nobody runs it anymore. While ITC is still very vital in many areas, I wonder about it in ten years time...

Cars ARE getting faster, and we do see eligible candidates popping up. When is the right time to add a class like ITR? What kind of participation levels would we see? Is there pent up demand? If we build it, will you come? What would you build?

For the sake of discusssion, lets just assume it is a full IT class, no special rules allowing World Challenge cars in. They can go to ITE in most places. Just a higher spec.

Banzai240

09-19-2005, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 19 2005, 11:08 AM
Scott,

I understand your philosophy and agree to a certain extent. If I were king, I would try to keep most cars in the 'middle' and add new class of cars as demand dictated. ITR, if you will.

AB

60529

I happen to have a spreadsheet with about 20 cars on it that would be the start of just such a class... About 10 of them currently exist in ITS... With the new target wt/pwr ratio, the BMW would be in "ITU", "ITR", or whatever you want to call it, at about 2600lbs... +/- weight for adders which would depend on what the rest of the class looks like...

Basically, any car in ITS that makes in the 175+ stock range would be targeted for this new class, as would the Z32 300Z, IS300, Supra, etc., etc., etc... You could fit the M3, or any number of other cars...

It would be an EXPENSIVE class to race... But, it would allow the flexibility to put cars that have to weight 2800lbs plus in ITS at a reasonable weight, as can be seen by the BMW weight... (now you'll start complaining that the BMW can't make that weight... :rolleyes: WELCOME to the club!)

Here the list of cars from the spreadsheet I put together about 6-months ago:

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

DoubleD

09-19-2005, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 18 2005, 09:04 PM
I am NOT a proponent of ADDITIONAL changes.

60518

So adding weight to the minimum for a car isn't making a change to it?

Bill Miller

09-19-2005, 09:29 AM

Interesting list Darin. Sure are a lot of popular cars on it. Be neat to see it fleshed out w/ some target weights for those cars.

Andy Bettencourt

09-19-2005, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 19 2005, 08:24 AM
So adding weight to the minimum for a car isn't making a change to it?

60536

Come on Dave, focus! :D

I don't want to add weight to the car WITH the restrictor in place. Additional in this case meaning not weight + RP - just get it right with the same process we have been using for almost 2 years now. But sinse the CRB went the RP route, we want to wait the year out and the E36 isn't part of the proposal we submitted to the PTB. Remember, this whole debate isn't about what is GOING to happen, but what the people on this BB THINK should happen.

My goal is to have the minimum weights of the cars classes in IT to 'make sense'. I want to be able to look any driver in the eye, run through some loose numbers, compare those to the traditional benchmanrks in their class, and have that person at least agree in philosophy that the cars were classed either: 1. correctly 2. Close to correctly and/or 3. With integrity (and the ability to correct a mistake).

AB

lateapex911

09-19-2005, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 19 2005, 09:24 AM
So adding weight to the minimum for a car isn't making a change to it?

60536

:rolleyes:

C'mon, don't edit out of context.....

You, and we know he meant changes just for changes sake..uneeded changes...

The debate here is about the cars position in the clsas, and how to best handle it..

Banzai240

09-19-2005, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 19 2005, 01:29 PM
Interesting list Darin. Sure are a lot of popular cars on it. Be neat to see it fleshed out w/ some target weights for those cars.

60537

Keep in mind this is VERY rough and VERY preliminary... but it kind of gives you an idea:

Volkswagen Corrado SLC = 2495
Volkswagen Golf GTI VR-6 -1995 =2438
Volkswagen Jetta VR-6 (94-96) = 2438

Acura Integra GS-R (92-93) = 2410
Acura Integra GS-R (3 door) (94-95) + 96-99 = 2410
Acura RSX Type-S 2002 = ???
Acura Integra 97-99 = 2667

Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 = 3218

Toyota Supra (86 1/2-87) = 2860

Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L 16V = 2646

BMW 325i/is (2 & 4door) (92-95) = 2703

Ford Contour V-6 (non-SVT) -1995 = 2381
Ford Mustang V6 1999+ = 2717
Honda Prelude SH & non-SH (97-98) = 2739
Honda Prelude V-Tech = 2667

Again... THESE ARE JUST ROUGH DRAFT, THINKING OUT-LOUD ESTIMATES... The final weights would depend heavily on figuring out a target wt/hp ratio that would fit the entire set of cars most appropriately... For example, I still think that 3200lbs for the 300Z is excessive, but it's capable of nearly 300hp with IT prep so that's the weight this estimate predicts...

However, there does appear to be some pretty strong justification for another class... The questions would be...

1) What would the participation numbers actually be?
2) Would this class simply overlap whatever the "D-Production" crew is coming up with???
3) Is a class with cars of this caliber, which would be SOOOO expensive to run, in the best interests of IT???
4) Do these cars already have a place to race and are we duplicating our efforts (kind of goes with #2...)
5) ?????

Ron Earp

09-19-2005, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 19 2005, 01:48 PM

1) What would the participation numbers actually be?
2) Would this class simply overlap whatever the "D-Production" crew is coming up with???
3) Is a class with cars of this caliber, which would be SOOOO expensive to run, in the best interests of IT???
4) Do these cars already have a place to race and are we duplicating our efforts (kind of goes with #2...)
5) ?????

60540

1) Don't know - but as the man said, build it and they will come. I can promise you that if you class the 300z Jeff and I will build one. So, there is one team in the class right now.

2) Prod is a completely different animal with respect to engine build and cost big $$$. This ITX class, or whatever you call it, might cost more than ITS but it won't cost as much as a Prod class.

3) Yes. People will populate it due to their interest level in the cars classes.

4) Not that I know of in SCCA. Why NASA is popular with the import crowd, gets more of their pocket rockets racing on track.

R

DoubleD

09-19-2005, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Sep 19 2005, 08:38 AM-->
Come on Dave, focus!

I don't want to add weight to the car WITH the restrictor in place. Additional in this case meaning not weight + RP - just get it right with the same process we have been using for almost 2 years now. But sinse the CRB went the RP route, we want to wait the year out and the E36 isn't part of the proposal we submitted to the PTB.

60538
[/b]

There is definitely a problem here but it is not my focus.

Does the restrictor reduce HP or not? Do you know if it does or do you not know? I am forced to ask that question because you allude that additional weight is in some way offset by eliminating the restrictor. Frankly, if you don't know what the restrictor's true effect is - and based on statements posted in this thread it seems you do not - such allusions are disingenuous at best.

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Sep 19 2005, 08:38 AM

Remember, this whole debate isn't about what is GOING to happen, but what the people on this BB THINK should happen.

60538

I am far less concerned by the thoughts of the average racer than I am by the expressed opinions of ITAC members here. This thread specifically has been held out as a psuedo-official means of communication with ITAC. Members of ITAC specifically stated that the BMW drivers need to use this thread as a means of communication with ITAC. Demands been made that people post in this thread with opinions "for the record" by ITAC members. ITAC members have proposed specific weight increases for the 325 in this thread. The sum of all of this is grave concern on my part that ITAC's intention is to make a major change to the 325 - and make no mistake, the proposed 350 pounds is a major change, with or without the restrictor. Indeed, removing the restrictor may make it worse as the cost of redevelopment will be that much higher.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 19 2005, 08:38 AM

My goal is to have the minimum weights of the cars classes in IT to 'make sense'. I want to be able to look any driver in the eye, run through some loose numbers, compare those to the traditional benchmanrks in their class, and have that person at least agree in philosophy that the cars were classed either: 1. correctly 2. Close to correctly or 3. With integrity (and the ability to correct a mistake).

AB

60538

Please add an item 4 to your list: reasonable stability. This thread has literally stopped me in my tracks. I have a '92 325 and '94 motor waiting for me to bring a check by. I have a suspension quote coming and a verbal agreement with a small sponsor. I am literally 1 step away from total financial committment to ITS. If the car's weight is going to remain close to what it currently is and engine development costs aren't going to rise I will go forward. If however ITAC insists upon proponing massive changes to the car - and I repeat 3200lbs is a MASSIVE CHANGE - I wil not be racing ITS. At 3200lbs the car will never, ever have a chance at a checker regardless of restrictor plate rules. Not only that, but it will eat tires like my 7 year old eats goldfish crackers and will not be fun to drive at all. While you may turn your nose up to SRF or spec racing, there are good reasons that they are the largest classes by a country mile, chief among them being the stability of expectation inherent in Spec classes. As a newbie, I see no stability and have no idea what to expect for an ITS 325 next year as long as ITAC's members are publicly throwing around huge numbers in public based on hokey numbers.

zracre

09-19-2005, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 19 2005, 09:48 AM
Keep in mind this is VERY rough and VERY preliminary... but it kind of gives you an idea:

Volkswagen Corrado SLC = 2495
Volkswagen Golf GTI VR-6 -1995 =2438
Volkswagen Jetta VR-6 (94-96) = 2438
Acura Integra GS-R (92-93) = 2410
Acura Integra GS-R (3 door) (94-95) + 96-99 = 2410
Acura RSX Type-S 2002 = ???
Acura Integra 97-99 = 2667

Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 = 3218

Toyota Supra (86 1/2-87) = 2860

Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L 16V = 2646

BMW 325i/is (2 & 4door) (92-95) = 2703

Ford Contour V-6 (non-SVT) -1995 = 2381
Ford Mustang V6 1999+ = 2717
Honda Prelude SH & non-SH (97-98) = 2739
Honda Prelude V-Tech = 2667
Again... THESE ARE JUST ROUGH DRAFT, THINKING OUT-LOUD ESTIMATES... The final weights would depend heavily on figuring out a target wt/hp ratio that would fit the entire set of cars most appropriately... For example, I still think that 3200lbs for the 300Z is excessive, but it's capable of nearly 300hp with IT prep so that's the weight this estimate predicts...

However, there does appear to be some pretty strong justification for another class... The questions would be...

1) What would the participation numbers actually be?
2) Would this class simply overlap whatever the "D-Production" crew is coming up with???
3) Is a class with cars of this caliber, which would be SOOOO expensive to run, in the best interests of IT???
4) Do these cars already have a place to race and are we duplicating our efforts (kind of goes with #2...)
5) ?????

60540

I would probably leave the current ITS cars where they are now and class the big guns in the faster class so as not to hurt participation numbers ($$$) in ITS (ie. integra prelude etc)...I think ITS has a good formula now maybe needing slight weight adjustments up and down for a few cars...but it works. There will be many new 200hp+ cars coming down the pipeline soon so it is a good place to put them before reclassification becomes neccesary. As for participation goes I think there are enough BMW's that would love a diet... :119:

Banzai240

09-19-2005, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 19 2005, 02:26 PM
As a newbie, I see no stability and have no idea what to expect for an ITS 325 next year as long as ITAC's members are publicly throwing around huge numbers in public based on hokey numbers.

60543

OK, you've sucked me in again...

As someone who is NOT a newbie... I can tell you that the 325 has been at issue since it's initial classification... It's existance has HURT ITS's participation numbers... THERE is NO arguement about that...

As for Hokey numbers... The numbers that we are working with are real... The CRB and the ITAC have the Dyno sheets that were sent to us by Bruce Shafer, as an example of what a BMW E36 from Bimmerworld "truely" produces... His attempt was to show that the restrictor plate change should not have happened...

Those numbers are low compared to other HP output figures we've been given... BUT, using those numbers, the car is STILL about 200lbs too light... AT LEAST...

If this is a case where YOU are the only one capable of coming up with "real" numbers, then by all means, provide them... Ours are NOT "hokey", as you'd like to put it, they are as real as we have available, and our thoughts on them have been adjusted accordingly to correct for any dyno differences, etc...

So give me a break on all this black helicopter, the ITAC is trying to screw us over BS... If you are truely a newbie as you claim, then you really don't have the credibility on this issue to make the accusations you are making...

Further, even using the lowest of power estimates from this car, it's considerably too light for the class... Prove me wrong on that if you can...

As for tires... give it a rest... There are plenty of examples of cars out there that are much heavier than the BMW who don't fall off the track because of tires...

Finally, if you aren't willing to build and race a car just because you aren't going to be guaranteed an instant front-runner for a minor investment in developement and talent (not saying anything about $$$$ here...), then this may not be the class for you...

The ITAC is interested in getting away from the car-of-the-month club that IT has been the past 5+ years, and getting back to a place where racers have a choice... There is NO reason why this can't be done... However, ITS will NOT work so long as there are a couple of cars whose performance potential has been so underestimated...

Bill Miller

09-19-2005, 11:10 AM

Dave,

Please provide hard evidence that the numbers are 'hokey'.

Ron,

Don't fall into the trap that IT doesn't cost as much (or more) than Prod. We did this analysis a while back (before you joined, IIRC), and there were plenty of ITS cars (mostly E36 BMWs) that were considerably more than several top EP cars.

Darin,

Looks good. Not sure how close you can get w/ some of them though. For example, the VR6 Corrado had a curb weight of over 2800#. I don't know if you can get 325 - 350 # out of that car, legally.

Ron Earp

09-19-2005, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 19 2005, 03:10 PM

Don't fall into the trap that IT doesn't cost as much (or more) than Prod. We did this analysis a while back (before you joined, IIRC), and there were plenty of ITS cars (mostly E36 BMWs) that were considerably more than several top EP cars.

60548

You are preaching to the choir on that one, but I think in general IT is less expensive for the average racer not building a E36 or odd car.

Less expensive for me personally? Probably not - I'm building a JH and I can't simply call up JensenWorld and order a header for my car. I have to have one made or make it myself, ditto every other go fast goodie on my car, so I know expense. And I know BMW's are expensive too, I've seen BimmerWorlds prices for stuff and it ain't cheap.

But, it is still in some cases less expensive to develop your car with a credit card and order parts compared with doing all the development yourself. Not as fun IMHO, but I'd bet cheaper. If I ever get the JH running well and I pass some folks, or Jeff's TR8 runs upfront, I'll take pride in the fact I had a direct hand in making that happen with either car - priceless.

Banzai240

09-19-2005, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 19 2005, 03:10 PM
Darin,

Looks good. Not sure how close you can get w/ some of them though. For example, the VR6 Corrado had a curb weight of over 2800#. I don't know if you can get 325 - 350 # out of that car, legally.

60548

Yah, I agree and know that some of these weights are not realisitic... this list was just a brainstorming I was doing to see if the idea was viable, and the ITAC and CRB briefly discussed the concept many months ago... I doubt you'll see any movement on this in the near future. We believe we have a handle on what to do with the existing 4-classes, so if a car exceeds the ITS parameters, we will just have to respectfully decline it's inclusion for now... We just had to do this with both the 300Z and the Supra... Just simply too much HP for the class and would have to weight entirely too much... even when lowballing the estimated HP...

Might work better to just live with some of the existing ITS cars being heavier in ITS, and save the next class for those putting out maybe 190hp or more in stock trim... that would allow us to lower the target wt/pwr ratio a bit and really fit in some fun cars, as well as give cars like the 944S and BMW a better set of classification specs (in the higher class at a lighter weight...)

Andy Bettencourt

09-19-2005, 11:42 AM

Dave,

It doesn't sound to me like you are interested in parity. Sorry to hear that.

Your assertions that I am trying to use peoples opinions as data is wrong. I am trying to get answers to questions that will help us all uderstand why you guys think you are being either persecuted or we are way off base with our process. Every other car has to go through it, why not the E36?

We have data that demonstrates 195whp with stock electronics. We have data that demonstrates the cars are capable of 210whp. We have second-hand info that some cars have made over 220whp. We take it all in. 210 is what *I* go off of because it has been presented and verified in multiple formats.

That kind of power is just not in-line with the current class targets. Sorry.

I am done until somebody brings some new info to the table. I have seen nothing.

AB

And as far as costs for a potential "ITR", don't worry about them that much. We have over $40K in the 04 RX-7 over 4 years (now for sale) and the SM I built this past winter that is going ITA this upcoming winter already has over $20K in it without labor and just a crate motor.

Bill Miller

09-19-2005, 11:56 AM

Darin,

What about the 3rd generation Supra @ 3380#? I'll have to do some digging on it, but it's a rather portly car (which is probalby why no one has built one). Point being, there are some pretty heavy cars already classed. Just checked, the 7M-GE (non-turbo) engine was rated at 200HP. It's a 3.0 24V I-6. That's only 11 more stock HP than the E36 325. Interesting that it's over 500# heavier.

Catch22

09-19-2005, 12:03 PM

I agree with the idea of an ITR class. Cars are getting more powerful and as time passes they need a place to go.

But (and I say this realizing Darin said the list is "rough") you have to be careful what cars you move.

For example, earlier in this thread we discussed the Integra GSR and Mazda RX7 being nearly identical in whp and torque in ITS trim. The Mazda actually even has better brakes.

Yet somehow the GSR is on the ITR list and the Mazda isn't. To further complicate things, the GSR is there at a weight it can't even remotely attain. No way.

Where I grew up thats called robbing Peter to pay Paul.

IMO - The "ITR" cars need to be the ones up around the 200whp IN ITS TRIM mark. The cars, that if classed now in ITS, would need hundreds of pounds of ballast.
Please don't start looking at things based on manufacturers rated HP at the crank. Thats where much of the BMW problem started in the first place, and the crank rated HP of the 13B RX7 isn't even in the same zip code as what one can get in ITS trim. You guys are doing a great job looking at things in terms of IT potential so far, don't stop now.

As a reminder...
Stock Rated Crank HP...
RX7 - 150
Integra GSR - 172

Typical ITS WHEEL Horsepower...
RX7 - 175
GSR - 175

:)

Banzai240

09-19-2005, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller+Sep 19 2005, 03:56 PM-->
Darin,

What about the 3rd generation Supra @ 3380#? I'll have to do some digging on it, but it's a rather portly car (which is probalby why no one has built one). Point being, there are some pretty heavy cars already classed. [/b]

Exactly Bill... I have the Supras on the list, but didn't have the stock HP info to work from... The 86 1/2 to 87 car was rated at 200hp and would be about 2750 or so in the new class...

<!--QuoteBegin-Bill Miller@Sep 19 2005, 03:56 PM
Just checked, the 7M-GE (non-turbo) engine was rated at 200HP. It's a 3.0 24V I-6. That's only 11 more stock HP than the E36 325. Interesting that it's over 500# heavier.

60556

Now-Now Bill... Don't go bringing up facts like that... You'll be lumped into the BMW haters group like most of the rest of us!! ;) Observations like that could mean nothing else...

Incidently... on the Supra you mention... at 3380lbs... It's classified pretty much just how it should be for this class... based on the process... Another point that illustrates just how improperely some other cars are currently classified...

Ron Earp

09-19-2005, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 19 2005, 04:03 PM
As a reminder...
Stock Rated Crank HP...
RX7 - 150
Integra GSR - 172

60559

Actually, later RX7 models (last two years IIRC) made 160hp instead of the 146hp (not 150hp) quoted. Using the parts from the 160hp motors is perfectly acceptable, so the starting point it is a little better than you quote.

R

Andy Bettencourt

09-19-2005, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 19 2005, 11:03 AM
I agree with the idea of an ITR class. Cars are getting more powerful and as time passes they need a place to go.

But (and I say this realizing Darin said the list is "rough") you have to be careful what cars you move.

For example, earlier in this thread we discussed the Integra GSR and Mazda RX7 being nearly identical in whp and torque in ITS trim. The Mazda actually even has better brakes.

Yet somehow the GSR is on the ITR list and the Mazda isn't. To further complicate things, the GSR is there at a weight it can't even remotely attain. No way.

Where I grew up thats called robbing Peter to pay Paul.

IMO - The "ITR" cars need to be the ones up around the 200whp IN ITS TRIM mark. The cars, that if classed now in ITS, would need hundreds of pounds of ballast.
Please don't start looking at things based on manufacturers rated HP at the crank. Thats where much of the BMW problem started in the first place, and the crank rated HP of the 13B RX7 isn't even in the same zip code as what one can get in ITS trim. You guys are doing a great job looking at things in terms of IT potential so far, don't stop now.

As a reminder...
Stock Rated Crank HP...
RX7 - 150
Integra GSR - 172

Typical ITS WHEEL Horsepower...
RX7 - 175
GSR - 175

:)

60559

The list is so rough I wouldn't get your painties ion a bunch about the GSR. I think the Type R is better suited anyway.

The RX-7 made 160 crank in S5 (89-91) form, 146 in S4 (86-88).

AB

JeffYoung

09-19-2005, 12:23 PM

Guys, this has been a fantastic discussion. Much appreciated on all sides, and really cool to me that guys who make the rules get on here and discuss how they are made.

I'll kick in my two cents -- after reading all this, I agree with Scott and others. Let's deduct weight from the existing S cars and keep the Bimmer at 325. I think most of the front runners can do it (I'm an oddball, TR8, but at 2560 I run 50 lbs of ballast and a full tank of gas at 185 lb driver to make weight, so I can lose weight). I think the GSR, the 944, the 240z, definitely the 260z, the 280z, and the RX7 can all drop a few as well.

Darin, I liked your spreadsheet on ITR. It is a "different" enough group of cars that I think S remains viable. Also, the price of entry is high enough that I think it will be more like T1 and T2.

In any event, good discussion.

Andy Bettencourt

09-19-2005, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 19 2005, 11:23 AM
Guys, this has been a fantastic discussion. Much appreciated on all sides, and really cool to me that guys who make the rules get on here and discuss how they are made.

60564

Remember, the ITAC only recommends. The CRB and the BoD make the rules.

AB

Banzai240

09-19-2005, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 19 2005, 04:23 PM
Let's deduct weight from the existing S cars and keep the Bimmer at 325. I think most of the front runners can do it (I'm an oddball, TR8, but at 2560 I run 50 lbs of ballast and a full tank of gas at 185 lb driver to make weight, so I can lose weight). I think the GSR, the 944, the 240z, definitely the 260z, the 280z, and the RX7 can all drop a few as well.
60564

Having looked at all the specs in great detail, the idea of leaving top cars alone and just bringing the lower cars up to speed is not a feadible idea... Many... MANY of the cars in the class that are out of whack are NOT able to drop this weight... Many have a hard time getting down to the weight they are at...

For example, the 944 would have to weight 2547lbs or so just to meet the class target... Most of the experts believe that would be an absolute, no-holds-barred, all out effort weight for this car, and even then it might come up a little short... And that's just to meet the class target... which the BMW already greatly exceeds...

Short of moving cars at the top out of the class, the only fair and viable solution is to try to bring the ends of the class more toward the middle by making adjustments on both sides and narrowing down the performance envolope for the class... We've looked at many different angles, and that is the solution that seems most viable and effects the fewest number of cars...

Doing it the way descibed in your post would mean that EVERY car in ITS EXCEPT the BMW and a few others would have to be adjusted... This would open the door for WAY more potential errors... and would likely cause more harm than good... asside from the fact that it couldn't be done in many cases (you can't make a 240Z any lighter than it is in ITS prep, for example... there are many other examples..)

944-spec#94

09-19-2005, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 19 2005, 10:10 AM
For example, the 944 would have to weight 2547lbs or so just to meet the class target... Most of the experts believe that would be an absolute, no-holds-barred, all out effort weight for this car, and even then it might come up a little short... And that's just to meet the class target... which the BMW already greatly exceeds...

I have been lurking here for a while and figured I had some info.

I Run an 84 944 in a spec class. The basic cars are similar to IT prep in many ways, but are not in general IT legal. We all a minium of 2600 with driver. This seems to be reasonable weight for most cars.

I personall run my car about 2615 (little over account for scales). This is with 40lbs of proper ballast and about 30lbs of passengers seat & mountings.

I come in at 155 lbs or so and probably could get my 944 to 2550lbs. Possibly lighter as I still have a power windows and stock battery. One thing to consider is our rules a bit more liberal on stuff that can be removed so while I think I can get to 2550 per my rules and maybe even IT rules I do know others may find it hard. 944 chassis tend to vary quite a bit and somefolks have an easy time making our 2600 lbs min and other have hard time. Even so 2600lbs in 944 in IT trim is probably reasonable. 2550 lbs is pushing it.

PS... there are two reason I don't run IT in my 944.
1) the 944 is too heavy (2715) and not powerfull enough for ITS
2) There is no ITS competition in my area (Phoenix).

Bill Miller

09-19-2005, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 19 2005, 12:09 PM
Exactly Bill... I have the Supras on the list, but didn't have the stock HP info to work from... The 86 1/2 to 87 car was rated at 200hp and would be about 2750 or so in the new class...
Now-Now Bill... Don't go bringing up facts like that... You'll be lumped into the BMW haters group like most of the rest of us!! ;) Observations like that could mean nothing else...

Incidently... on the Supra you mention... at 3380lbs... It's classified pretty much just how it should be for this class... based on the process... Another point that illustrates just how improperely some other cars are currently classified...

60560

Yeah Darin, I wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that I have ever supported an objective process that was based on emperical data. :P :P :023: :happy204: :smilie_pokal:

As far as ITR (or ITGT or whatever it's called), I think it's definately needed. Where will you put all those T3 (and possibly T2) cars when they can't run in T3/T2 anymore? Doing this now is a forward-thinking/proactive step, and might even be viewed by some as, dare I say it, strategic planning :o

DoubleD

09-19-2005, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 19 2005, 10:10 AM
Dave,

Please provide hard evidence that the numbers are 'hokey'.

60548

Bill,

Please don't ask me to disprove dyno numbers that can not be made public because they don't exist. That's like asking me to prove that the government doesn't have black helicopters hovering over ITAC member's homes. ;)

That there are lots of claims but only one person who seems to have a dyno in hand and is willing to share it speaks volumes. If ITAC has dyno's showing over 200rwhp I'd sure like to see them. I'll provide webspace for them to be posted to this forum.

-Dave

Andy Bettencourt

09-19-2005, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 19 2005, 01:33 PM
Bill,

Please don't ask me to disprove dyno numbers that can not be made public because they don't exist. That's like asking me to prove that the government doesn't have black helicopters hovering over ITAC member's homes. ;)

That there are lots of claims but only one person who seems to have a dyno in hand and is willing to share it speaks volumes. If ITAC has dyno's showing over 200rwhp I'd sure like to see them. I'll provide webspace for them to be posted to this forum.

-Dave

60576

So if I can get the permission of these car owners to post the sheets, you won't be then arguing the validity of the dyno, operator, etc? I am on it.

Oh, and BTW, all you are asking for is a dyno sheet that has 5 more WHP than a car without full engine management...you don't think that is possible? :119:

AB