New Weight for E36 325 ITS? [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Banzai240

10-21-2005, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 21 2005, 02:59 AM
I've been lurking here for a while and following the debate (others might call it something else) regarding the apparent "overdog" status of the E36 325 in ITS.

I gather from various threads that the December Fastrack will be revelatory in this matter, but inquiring minds want to plan now.

63124

The ITAC has a con-call on the 24th, then I will meet with the CRB on November 1st to discuss the plan...

I'm guessing that the CRB will want to post member notices on this stuff shortly there-after, and the BoD will make the final determination in December...

If the timing doesn't work out to get this plan implemented for 2006, then I'm not sure what happens after that... I did notice in the latest fastracks that there were several changes that seemed to be effective in the middle of the season... I'm hopeful that this won't be one of those...

Whether the BMW has to carry any additional weight next year at all has yet to be determined... It'll be up to the CRB as to whether or not they will accept our proposal... However, the car SHOULD weight at LEAST 3050-3100lbs to be correctly classified in ITS... And this weight is based on yet another letter that the CRB just received from a BMW racer who was kind enough to supply real HP figures for a typically prepared E36...

Byron Smith

10-21-2005, 10:39 AM

"regional only...."

Duh. Knew that....just had a mistied neuron from reading all those acerbic SSB/C boards...

The question remains.

Byron Smith

10-21-2005, 10:43 AM

So basically, this car should weigh stock weight to fit the formula.

3087 for 93-95, according to BWCCA.
3021 for 92, according to BWCCA.

Hard to believe that's going to happen.

lateapex911

10-21-2005, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 21 2005, 10:43 AM

Hard to believe that's going to happen.....

63150

Why????

(there ARE, of course other options...a SIR could be required at the current weight, or a SIR and a new weight, or just a decreased opening in the current restrictor, or...........nothing. The CRB may decide to persue any of the five basic directions.)

Bill Miller

10-21-2005, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 21 2005, 10:43 AM
So basically, this car should weigh stock weight to fit the formula.

3087 for 93-95, according to BWCCA.
3021 for 92, according to BWCCA.

Hard to believe that's going to happen.

63150

Why's that? There are cars out there that weigh over their stock weight (Rabbit GTI is the first one that jumps to mind, and that's by ~175#. Granted, that's w/ driver).

George,

Never say 'forever'. :D

Catch22

10-21-2005, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 21 2005, 02:43 PM
Hard to believe that's going to happen.

63150

An ITS Integra GSR with a full 8 point custom cage and fully gutted, with a 180lb driver, needs to have approximately 110lbs of ballast added. Give or take a few pounds.

My old '94 Integra had ALOT of cage (looked like monkey bars at the playground in there) and I weigh about 220lbs. Weight with me in it, 3/4 tank of gas and no ballast was 2620.
Last time I checked its minimum weight in ITS is 2690.

Whats so hard to believe?

Banzai240

10-21-2005, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 21 2005, 05:14 PM
Why????
(there ARE, of course other options...a SIR could be required at the current weight, or a SIR and a new weight, or just a decreased opening in the current restrictor, or...........nothing.
63162

...OR... they could just declassify it...

Once again, I have to chuckle that people find this so hard to believe, when the E46 was just classified at 3000lbs... and makes quite a bit less stock hp... i.e.: should have a bit less potential...

This is one car where the "perception" of it being an overdog meets with reality on ALL FRONTS...

Geo

10-21-2005, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 21 2005, 12:33 PM

George,

Never say 'forever'. :D

63166

Ouch! You got me. Good call.

There's always hope of course.

Ron Earp

10-24-2005, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 21 2005, 02:43 PM
3087 for 93-95, according to BWCCA.
3021 for 92, according to BWCCA.

63150

Bryon, that is just about perfect - 3100lbs. And, there are many cars classed at curb weight. I've mentioned it before, but my JH is classed at about 55 lbs OVER its rolling curb weight with all optional accessories (interior electric light). I'll just add weight. So, definitely believable and on the right track.

R

charrbq

10-24-2005, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 21 2005, 09:33 PM
...OR... they could just declassify it...

Once again, I have to chuckle that people find this so hard to believe, when the E46 was just classified at 3000lbs... and makes quite a bit less stock hp... i.e.: should have a bit less potential...

This is one car where the "perception" of it being an overdog meets with reality on ALL FRONTS...

63194

Wow! Can you imagine the impact that would have on so many BMW racers who have spent small fortunes building a fairly expensive car only to find out that they were so good at their homework that no one wanted to play with them anymore.

If you put this along side another thread that questions where have all the IT racers gone...can we formulate a possible, or at least potential, answer?

No one likes to develop a winning car only to see it penalized with weight, but we know that can happen as we asked for it to be included in the rules. But to be declassified for being too fast...that's a kick in the nether areas.

I'm sure NASA like to hear of such things. It gives them another class...BMW challenge?

JeffYoung

10-24-2005, 01:33 PM

Chris, I think Darrin's post on declassifying was in jest. I've never head him advocate declassification EVEr for any car, old or new.

Almost all non-BMW ITS drivers who post here have said the same thing: we all want the car in the class. However, it is about 200 lbs too light vis a vis its potential horsepower and its stock curb weight. That's an error. So, yes, a lot of folks did some homework and built very fast BMWs. I don't think the 200 lbs will significantly slow the fastest of the fast, and the best driven of the bunch. But it will make it harder for the "average" BMW to finish near the front -- and that is the way it should be.

Geo

10-24-2005, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Oct 24 2005, 12:33 PM
Chris, I think Darrin's post on declassifying was in jest. I've never head him advocate declassification EVEr for any car, old or new.

Almost all non-BMW ITS drivers who post here have said the same thing: we all want the car in the class. However, it is about 200 lbs too light vis a vis its potential horsepower and its stock curb weight. That's an error. So, yes, a lot of folks did some homework and built very fast BMWs. I don't think the 200 lbs will significantly slow the fastest of the fast, and the best driven of the bunch. But it will make it harder for the "average" BMW to finish near the front -- and that is the way it should be.

63369

Extremely well said Jeff.

I don't think the comment about declassification was in jest so much as saying something needs to be done and that's certainly an option. But as you said, I don't think anyone seriously advocates for this position. Too many other very viable options.

Banzai240

10-24-2005, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Geo@Oct 24 2005, 05:39 PM
I don't think the comment about declassification was in jest so much as saying something needs to be done and that's certainly an option. But as you said, I don't think anyone seriously advocates for this position. Too many other very viable options.

63372

It was NOT in jest... it IS an option... But, George is right, I would never advocate (and have never advocated) it except in the extreme case that something else cannot be done to correct the issue...

What we've suggested is the solution that has the fewest questions about what impact it will have, and puts the car on the same field with the rest of the cars...

charrbq

10-24-2005, 02:06 PM

I know it wasn't in jest, nor did I intend my comments to be taken that way. I interpreted it to be more of a threat to all those who bitched. No one wants to be declassified and no one says that the BMW's will be. But when that comment is thrown out, it makes the uninformed wonder. I only meant that if it was to happen, ( and I don't feel it will) it's the kind of stuff that drives people in mass to other sanctioning organizations to play...not that it will happen, either.

My response was sarcastic, but I took the comment seriously.

Byron Smith

10-25-2005, 12:30 AM

Well, thanks guys for the input.

I think for now, I need to wait until the Fastrack comes out and evaluate the change.

For me, I'm concerned about driving such a heavy car if it is all done with weight. I would more inclined to build the E36 if the equalization could be accomplished with restrictors.

As a current (and continuing) SM 1.6 driver, I do appreciate the lower weight and how that translates into handling and corner speed. I'm looking for a second track car that will give a different (and enjoyable) track experience....I don't drive a Miata because I'm in love with the manufacturer. But I've owned a lot of Bimmers, appreciate the make and I thought it would be fun to have a BMW contender.... :)

Maybe still.

lateapex911

10-25-2005, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 25 2005, 12:30 AM
Well, thanks guys for the input.

I think for now, I need to wait until the Fastrack comes out and evaluate the change.

For me, I'm concerned about driving such a heavy car if it is all done with weight. I would more inclined to build the E36 if the equalization could be accomplished with restrictors.

63435

I think that is a very reasonable position. Also, you should voice your thoughts regarding additional weight vs. restrictors as an official letter to the ITAC.

JeffYoung

10-25-2005, 01:28 PM

Byron, that is a very reasonable response. Thanks for being thoughtful about it.

Let me add this: I drive two 2600 lb ITS cars, and own 1/2 of 2 SMs. Fun cars, I love the SMs, mostly.

But, the extra hp and torque of the ITS cars, and yes the weight, makes for a very different driving experience. If you are comparing what 200 lbs will do to an SM versus what 200 lbs will do to a 220 hp 325 -- well, I just think the difference is far less on the 325.

Would love to have another 325 in ITS. I personally find driving my S cars to be more rewarding than the SMs.

Banzai240

10-25-2005, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 25 2005, 04:30 AM
For me, I'm concerned about driving such a heavy car if it is all done with weight.
63435

I look at it this way... I don't think that taking my buddy along for a ride would keep me from driving the car any harder... That's the kind of weight we are talking about...

I believe there is merrit in the idea of maybe combining the use of a restrictor and weight, or something like that... Maybe an SIR, if the CRB feels that the technology is reliable enough to do the job...

Either of these methods, however, can be hit and miss, based on the evaluation techniques we have available...

Equalizing by means of weight, given the information we have available (seemingly a lot more than on other cars...) is more of a sure thing...

We'd certainly like to do this only ONCE (or one more time...) and would like to get it right...

lateapex911

10-25-2005, 08:06 PM

I am a big fan of utilizing the SIR, if it can be consistant.

It hits a lot of points.

1- There are lots of stories around about what the E36s are putting down, some guys are saying 215+, others are saying NO WAY! Well, with an SIR, we can spec the power. If a guy who says NO WAy has 195, and the spec power is decided to be set at 200, (just for instance), he wouldn't know he had a thing on his motor. But IF there ARE guys with over 215, they will be backed down to 195.

2- While the guys who have gone the extra mile to hit 215 (should they exist, legally) will be ticked that they have to back it down, such a device will save a lot the expense and trouble of hitting such lofty numbers.

3- Using a SIR avoids the need to add tons of weight to reel in the outliers...the guys with the big power, and that benefits everyone. We've heard complaints that carrying that much weight will make the car "unsafe", and while that is, to say the least, debateable, there is no denying that extra weight results in increased tire, brake and component wear.

4- Cheating is rather lame, but is especially unrewarding when combined with a SIR.
(Yes, building a big motor will help torque, but thats the guy who's gonna be a cheat no matter what.)

All in all, I think the use of a SIR, combined with weight, or used alone, is a win win solution.

JeffYoung

10-25-2005, 11:05 PM

Jake, I see your point, but to me, the SIR is a HUGE slippery slope, especially if we are talking about spec'ing horsepower. To me that cuts against the very basis of what IT is about: here are reasonable specs for your car, go build the best you can under the rules.

A restrictor and essentially a mandated amount of power....not IT...very production.

Put 200 lbs on the car to correct the weight classification error and let them make their 225 rwhp. If they can do it legally, more power to them (so to speak!).

Jeff

Andy Bettencourt

10-26-2005, 06:39 AM

Just for the record, 210whp is the max we have ever considerd when actually throwing around numbers. We have HEARD upwards toward 225 but have not seen any verification on those numbers.

Even at 205whp and a conservative conversion factor, the E36 should weigh over 3100 with NO restrictor. I see that as very resonable considering the E46 323 (at 172hp) comes in at 3000 with no complaints.

AB

Bill Miller

10-26-2005, 09:28 AM

Not to throw fuel on the fire Andy, but how many E46 323s are being raced? Has anyone built one? Are they anywhere close the the E36 325 times? Maybe some of the BMW tuners can comment.

BMWE46ITS

10-26-2005, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 06:39 AM

Even at 205whp and a conservative conversion factor, the E36 should weigh over 3100 with NO restrictor. I see that as very resonable considering the E46 323 (at 172hp) comes in at 3000 with no complaints.

AB

63588

Andy, I wouldn’t say no one is complaining about the E-46 power ratio to weight ratio. Jared Gaillard (numerous BMW ITS victory’s in the NE with both E-30 and E-36 BMWs) had the E-46 323i classified in ITS, but decided not build the car because he felt the car wouldn’t be competitive at the CRB specified weight. Since then Jared has decided not to run with SCCA because of politics involved. We will soon see how the E-46 car will run, but I do feel you will not see many of these cars in the future because of the cost involved in building / developing these cars. When we decided to build our two new E-46 ITS cars we contacted the CRB before we started our build trying to lower the weight, they said” they couldn’t lower the weight, till someone has run the car and we had real race results”. This sounds kind of different then the current “ results don’t matter” theory that I'm hearing now. On a side note: I’m really tired of hearing about stated H.P. numbers on this board, if you know anything about chassis dyno’s you know how much results can vary. They should only be used as a tuning aid and not as end all source for correct numbers.

Andy Bettencourt

10-26-2005, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Oct 26 2005, 11:49 AM
Andy, I wouldn’t say no one is complaining about the E-46 power ratio to weight ratio. Jared Gaillard (numerous BMW ITS victory’s in the NE with both E-30 and E-36 BMWs) had the E-46 323i classified in ITS, but decided not build the car because he felt the car wouldn’t be competitive at the CRB specified weight. Since then Jared has decided not to run with SCCA because of politics involved. We will soon see how the E-46 car will run, but I do feel you will not see many of these cars in the future because of the cost involved in building / developing these cars. When we decided to build our two new E-46 ITS cars we contacted the CRB before we started our build trying to lower the weight, they said” they couldn’t lower the weight, till someone has run the car and we had real race results”. This sounds kind of different then the current “ results don’t matter” theory that I'm hearing now. On a side note: I’m really tired of hearing about stated H.P. numbers on this board, if you know anything about chassis dyno’s you know how much results can vary. They should only be used as a tuning aid and not as end all source for correct numbers.

63635

All good points Jeff.

I have no idea what 'politics' Jared could be sour about. Would love to hear them so I can get into Black Helicopter mode...

I agree you won't see many because of the costs involved. That's life...I don't think you would have seen so many E36's if they were classed properly in the beginning either. If the E46 has no ADVANTAGE, an 'average' amount of them with show up, given the costs and ease of build - which you guys - as excellent BMW drivers have proven, is a tough proposition.

The CRB won't lower the weight until they see some evidence that it was mis-classed. Right now, it fits the process perfectly.

As far as HP numbers, they are just supporting data. Data at this point that supports race results, process figures, etc. Like I have stated before, if you put this car into the process CONSERVATIVELY, it would have to weigh 3100ish lbs. (That is using 235ish crank hp and/or 200ish wheel hp), which is seemingly on the low side of a 10/10th example.

For reference, the RX-7 is within 3 lbs of it's target should we class it today.

AB

Banzai240

10-26-2005, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS+Oct 26 2005, 03:49 PM-->
Jared Gaillard (numerous BMW ITS victory’s in the NE with both E-30 and E-36 BMWs) had the E-46 323i classified in ITS, but decided not build the car because he felt the car wouldn’t be competitive at the CRB specified weight. [/b]

Well, he's right... It won't be competitive... against the E36.... Otherwise, it's classified right on the money...

<!--QuoteBegin-BMWE46ITS@Oct 26 2005, 03:49 PM
On a side note: I’m really tired of hearing about stated H.P. numbers on this board, if you know anything about chassis dyno’s you know how much results can vary. They should only be used as a tuning aid and not as end all source for correct numbers.

63635

I find this a particularly interesting comment, since the numbers that we have been stating were sent to us by BMW owners trying to prevent any further restrictions on this car...

Making the assumption that dyno results may vary, we have two letters, sent to the CRB by BMW owners, that show results of 190whp (with restrictor) and 205whp (I believe this is without the restrictor)... Maybe you take them to a different dyno and they both will read 197.5whp... or, maybe you take them to a different dyno and they will read 195 and 210 respectively... OR, maybe you take them to another dyno and they read 185 and 200...

Either way, you have a case that pretty clearly shows the cars potential, and you can compare that to the process for classification and see that it's underclassified... It's potential was underestimated... Has nothing to do with results... they just provide further evidence toward this...

vodomagoo

10-26-2005, 01:10 PM

i think its foolish to add weight just because some bmw engine builders are able to squeeze that last bit out, how many and 240's rx7's are running motec and have the development dollars that the bmw's do in the engines? To be fair youd have to build a no cost barred engine for each platform and dyno them, I see adding weight due to 1 or 2 big spenders is backwards logic. Also every single dyno reads differently. Comparing dyno sheets from different days on different dynos, well there are way to many variables involved, weather calibration ect... this is all a big slipery slope. I was hoping to build a e36 its car in a year but i'm now very strongly reconsidering it

BMWE46ITS

10-26-2005, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Oct 26 2005, 12:31 PM-->
All good points Jeff.

I have no idea what 'politics' Jared could be sour about. Would love to hear them so I can get into Black Helicopter mode...

AB

63646
[/b]

I can’t speak for Jared, but I understood it to be he got really frustrated with the process of classify the car and how they added additional weight to the car even thought stock power was less then the E-36 cars.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 12:31 PM
All good points Jeff.

I agree you won't see many because of the costs involved. That's life...I don't think you would have seen so many E36's if they were classed properly in the beginning either. If the E46 has no ADVANTAGE, an 'average' amount of them with show up, given the costs and ease of build - which you guys - as excellent BMW drivers have proven, is a tough proposition.

63646

So what are you saying you don’t’ want to see a lot of cars showing up?? What is wrong with a lot of E-36s showing up, I remember in the late 90s about 15 to 20 RX7s per race compared to about 2 BMWs.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 12:31 PM
All good points Jeff.

The CRB won't lower the weight until they see some evidence that it was mis-classed. Right now, it fits the process perfectly.

63646

I agree or I would have chosen another class to run in.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 12:31 PM
All good points Jeff.

As far as HP numbers, they are just supporting data. Data at this point that supports race results, process figures, etc. Like I have stated before, if you put this car into the process CONSERVATIVELY, it would have to weigh 3100ish lbs. (That is using 235ish crank hp and/or 200ish wheel hp), which is seemingly on the low side of a 10/10th example.

63646

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter, or in your spare time please do some more research on dyno #s.

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 12:31 PM
All good points Jeff.

For reference, the RX-7 is within 3 lbs of it's target should we class it today.

63646

Andy we all know you know many other factors are involved when you are classifying race cars ala: great brakes, suspension geometry, weight distribution. In some ITS cars you are even comparing 2 seater “sports cars” to 4 door family sedans.

AB

BMWE46ITS

10-26-2005, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240+Oct 26 2005, 12:34 PM-->
Well, he's right... It won't be competitive... against the E36.... Otherwise, it's classified right on the money...
I find this a particularly interesting comment, since the numbers that we have been stating were sent to us by BMW owners trying to prevent any further restrictions on this car...

Making the assumption that dyno results may vary, we have two letters, sent to the CRB by BMW owners, that show results of 190whp (with restrictor) and 205whp (I believe this is without the restrictor)... Maybe you take them to a different dyno and they both will read 197.5whp... or, maybe you take them to a different dyno and they will read 195 and 210 respectively... OR, maybe you take them to another dyno and they read 185 and 200...

Either way, you have a case that pretty clearly shows the cars potential, and you can compare that to the process for classification and see that it's underclassified... It's potential was underestimated... Has nothing to do with results... they just provide further evidence toward this...

63647
[/b]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 26 2005, 12:34 PM
Well, he's right... It won't be competitive... against the E36.... Otherwise, it's classified right on the money...

63647

The car will be completive or I wouldn’t have spent a year building two of them. I also feel any top team with good drivers can build and run up front with any car with enough development and money.

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Oct 26 2005, 12:34 PM
Either way, you have a case that pretty clearly shows the cars potential, and you can compare that to the process for classification and see that it's underclassified... It's potential was underestimated... Has nothing to do with results... they just provide further evidence toward this...

63647

How can it have nothing to do with results??? That’s what racing is???

Darin I know you don’t race out here, but here in the North East, our 2004 ITS season was amazing, and the championship came down to one point. I said after the last race we will never have as close of a season as we did that year, between the BMWs and the Mazda’s. Will see what happens in 06, but 05 around here was Mazda walk away.

Banzai240

10-26-2005, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by vodomagoo@Oct 26 2005, 05:10 PM
i think its foolish to add weight just because some bmw engine builders are able to squeeze that last bit out, how many and 240's rx7's are running motec and have the development dollars that the bmw's do in the engines? To be fair youd have to build a no cost barred engine for each platform and dyno them, I see adding weight due to 1 or 2 big spenders is backwards logic.
63655

HUH??? Do we NOT have a responsibility to classify cars based on their true potential?? I think you are WAY off base here...

The point is to classify cars based on what the best of the best could do with them... After that, it's up to you... You don't REALLY expect us to classify cars based on the "average Joe" do you???

lateapex911

10-26-2005, 01:56 PM

BMWE46ITS

10-26-2005, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by vodomagoo@Oct 26 2005, 01:10 PM
i think its foolish to add weight just because some bmw engine builders are able to squeeze that last bit out, how many and 240's rx7's are running motec and have the development dollars that the bmw's do in the engines? To be fair youd have to build a no cost barred engine for each platform and dyno them, I see adding weight due to 1 or 2 big spenders is backwards logic. Also every single dyno reads differently. Comparing dyno sheets from different days on different dynos, well there are way to many variables involved, weather calibration ect... this is all a big slipery slope. I was hoping to build a e36 its car in a year but i'm now very strongly reconsidering it

63655

I agree 100% So if Speedsource kept running ITS they wouldn't have developed the RX7 to be faster in the last 4 years PLEASE!!!

They were faster in 01 when they ran them, then the current top Rx7s.

I also agree with you, the dyno results thing is a big slipery slope and a waste of time on this board YOU CAN"T COMPARE number.

Andy Bettencourt

10-26-2005, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by vodomagoo@Oct 26 2005, 01:10 PM
i think its foolish to add weight just because some bmw engine builders are able to squeeze that last bit out, how many and 240's rx7's are running motec and have the development dollars that the bmw's do in the engines? To be fair youd have to build a no cost barred engine for each platform and dyno them, I see adding weight due to 1 or 2 big spenders is backwards logic. Also every single dyno reads differently. Comparing dyno sheets from different days on different dynos, well there are way to many variables involved, weather calibration ect... this is all a big slipery slope. I was hoping to build a e36 its car in a year but i'm now very strongly reconsidering it

63655

If you think there are no cost-no-object RX-7's out there, you are kidding yourself.

We hope to go faster than any RX-7 has at RA ever - this year given it will be only Nick's 3rd time at the track. May the weather God's be with us.

It isn't about handicapping the big spenders, it's about putting everyone on a level playing field given the true potential of a specific make and model - SHOULD someone go all out. Would you rather be 'out-spent' with the POTENTIAL to be in the game with more money - or would you rather be 'out-classed' with no potential to be in the mix?

Jeff - 2005 in NE is so not a valid data point. No top Bimmers were there and you know it - why? Because you guys didn't show.

AB

robits325is

10-26-2005, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911+Oct 26 2005, 01:56 PM-->
A- Because you were wanting to race the car everyone considers an overdog, and are worried it will cease to be?

63665
[/b]

I don't think the BMW is an overdog - its the same as any other front running car - thats why people build them. Some fast drivers built some fast cars.

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 26 2005, 01:56 PM

B- You prefer not to race heads up?

63665

What a dumb comment - who wants to drive around by themselves (Do you think Nick had a fun year in 2005?)

<!--QuoteBegin-lateapex911@Oct 26 2005, 01:56 PM
C- You feel the ITAC will make the BMW a second rate car??

63665

Seems to be the direction - The trend of ITS BMWs being converted to race BMW CCA JP will continue in greater numbers than we've already seen in 2005.

vodomagoo

10-26-2005, 03:31 PM

I was mainly going to build a e36 its car since im a bmw guy, right now i have a e30 with a s50 in it and im gonna race cmod next year possibly with it in bmwcca but wanted to race an its car for the close compotition. I think that in the scca this is the only way im ever gonna get to run a bmw and have a shot at ever winning. But why spend the money on it if its just gonna keep getting restrictions added to it when ever it does good. I think the reason why bmw engines are ahead of the rest is due to involvement in pro racing and learning alot from that, I know if i do build one I wont be spending the money on the motec but still wana be somewhat competitive.

JeffYoung

10-26-2005, 03:39 PM

[Vodo, please trust me when I say this. If you build a 325 to the max of the rules, even at 3050 (which I think is its JP race weight, correct?), you will have one of the three best ITS cars available (along with the RX7 and the 240z). If you have the driving ability, you will win.

The guys who claim they won't build an ITS 325 or will go to BMWCCA and race against 3 other guys in their class because of 200lbs -- to me that's silly. It is true that the ITAC is going to make it harder for average BMWs to run up front. And it should be that way. It is not true that 200 lbs is going to stop Ed York, Chet Wittel and others from winning, a lot, with 10/10 BMWs.

Someone above said that with the right driver and a fully prepped car, almost any car can be competitive. I think that is 100% spot on. The goal of race car rule writing, to me anyway, should be to preserve that philosophy and prevent underdeveloped, average-driven cars from winning.

BMWE46ITS

10-26-2005, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Oct 26 2005, 02:29 PM-->
If you think there are no cost-no-object RX-7's out there, you are kidding yourself.

63670
[/b]

So if you brought your top Flatout Motorsport car (Nicks) to Speedsource and dropped it off with a check for $15K you really don’t think the car would be any faster. I’m sure my cars would be faster if I did the same at PTG.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 02:29 PM
We hope to go faster than any RX-7 has at RA ever - this year given it will be only Nick's 3rd time at the track. May the weather God's be with us.

63670

I wish Nick and you guys the best, I know if your motor is fresh he will put on a good show, just look at how much faster his car got this year when you finally put some decent shocks in the car.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 02:29 PM
It isn't about handicapping the big spenders, it's about putting everyone on a level playing field given the true potential of a specific make and model - SHOULD someone go all out. Would you rather be 'out-spent' with the POTENTIAL to be in the game with more money - or would you rather be 'out-classed' with no potential to be in the mix?

63670

How was 2004 year not a level playing field? Best racing we will see for awhile in the NE.

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 02:29 PM
Jeff - 2005 in NE is so not a valid data point. No top Bimmers were there and you know it - why? Because you guys didn't show.

63670

I agree, I wish we didn’t have all this restrictor plate BS and we could have run our car another year.

Andy Bettencourt

10-26-2005, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Oct 26 2005, 03:46 PM
So if you brought your top Flatout Motorsport car (Nicks) to Speedsource and dropped it off with a check for $15K you really don’t think the car would be any faster. I’m sure my cars would be faster if I did the same at PTG.

Nope. Been there, done that. Went to Speedsource before the 2004 ARRC...why? You have to have the best of the best to run at the ARRC.

I wish Nick and you guys the best, I know if your motor is fresh he will put on a good show, just look at how much faster his car got this year when you finally put some decent shocks in the car.

Faster at some tracks, not as fast as others.

How was 2004 year not a level playing field? Best racing we will see for awhile in the NE.

Just because the results showed close racing doesn't erase the fact that you guys could do it with less than 'optimal' power.

I agree, I wish we didn’t have all this restrictor plate BS and we could have run our car another year.

63684

Haven't heard one non-BMW driver call it BS. Taking away an unfair advantage is what most call it.

AB

Knestis

10-26-2005, 04:59 PM

It's just little ol' me but any time someone threatens to take their toys to another sandbox when their competitive advantage is threatened in Club Racing, I confess that my initial reaction is "Have fun, dude!" If 200 pounds (something like a 6% increase?) is all it takes to chase someone away, they weren't particularly committed in the first place.

Comparing cars at the pointy end of a grid with others in the same place, how much did maximum rewards ballast slow down the top SPEED Touring guys? Enough to make poles and wins harder but not enough to relegate them to backmarker status in a tight field. Certainly not enough to keep them at home.

It's a hard thing that the ITAC is trying to do and - again - I applaud them for doing so. Hitting the sweet spot with a new listing is going to be TOUGH but I'd argue that a lack of people tripping over one-another to build something shoudl be taken as evidence that at least they haven't erred in the direction of creating an overdog. That's half of getting it right on.

K

Banzai240

10-26-2005, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 26 2005, 08:59 PM
It's a hard thing that the ITAC is trying to do and - again - I applaud them for doing so. ....
63700

First Bill, Now Kirk... Why do I feel like I've entered some kind of parallel universe??? :unsure: ;)

(Just kidding guys... We are very glad to be at least trying to serve the best interests of IT as a group... and glad you like the direction we have been going... Thanks for the support! :023: )

Greg Amy

10-26-2005, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 26 2005, 04:59 PM
...my initial reaction is "Have fun, dude!"
63700

Mine was "Buh-bye!"...

lateapex911

10-26-2005, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by robits325is@Oct 26 2005, 02:33 PM
I don't think the BMW is an overdog - its the same as any other front running car - thats why people build them. Some fast drivers built some fast cars.

Well, the numbers...the cars stats.... that is, tell a different story. Not only is the car out of the envelope compared to the rest of the class, the cars attributes make it race better...as opposed to qualifying better. Thats based on the cars physical properties when it is built to the max. If you think that a car that puts down the kind of numbers we know it's capable of, torque and HP, is the equal to the rest of the field, then we will have to agree to disagree.

What a dumb comment - who wants to drive around by themselves (Do you think Nick had a fun year in 2005?)

Well, perhaps I should have inserted "or"s in there... but yes, many people DO choose overdog cars, or classes with little competition and avoid the classes with deep tight fields. Some do it unconsciously. Lets not kid ourselves there. Look, I don't blame the E36 guys for jumping on the car...it's a clear big dog right from the start....but hey...they've had thier day in the sun, it's now time to even things up a bit.

Seems to be the direction - The trend of ITS BMWs being converted to race BMW CCA JP will continue in greater numbers than we've already seen in 2005.

63671

Too bad...ITS will lose contenders that can win if prepped and driven well. Is the competition deeper there?

lateapex911

10-26-2005, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 26 2005, 05:14 PM
First Bill, Now Kirk... Why do I feel like I've entered some kind of parallel universe??? :unsure: ;)

(Just kidding guys... We are very glad to be at least trying to serve the best interests of IT as a group... and glad you like the direction we have been going... Thanks for the support! :023: )

63701

I just commented the other day, to a friend, that exact sentiment. IF Kirk AND Bill are pleased with the direction, then things are pretty OK.

Both are bottom line guys who have had their disappointments with the SCCA in the past.

Thanks guys.

(Bill even adopted a new avatar after I jokingly commented that his earlier approval was like pigs flying!)

lateapex911

10-26-2005, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by vodomagoo@Oct 26 2005, 03:31 PM
But why spend the money on it if its just gonna keep getting restrictions added to it when ever it does good. I think the reason why bmw engines are ahead of the rest is due to involvement in pro racing and learning alot from that, I know if i do build one I wont be spending the money on the motec but still wana be somewhat competitive.

63680

Italics mine....

NO...it isn't getting weight because it is doing well....it will get whatever it gets because the process shows that this car, as it is classed, is an outlier. It is ahead of the class target.

Why is it ahead?? A lot of reasons, but a main one is the fact that, for whatever reason, BMW chose to list the stock HP a bit low. Or that the engine is capable of huge gains when prepped. The bottom line is that the car was classed improperly, and it needs to be reeled in for the good of the class.

But not as a penalty.

Your post says two things about your goal...you want a shot at winning, but you don't want to go all out...you just want to be somewhat competitive. Well, either one is fine, but your results will vary if your choose the latter goal, dependent on who shows up in total prep cars.

JeffYoung

10-26-2005, 06:04 PM

Jake, BMWCCA racing is in my view ...interesting. They have a 13/13 rule, which has some merit but also would not work in IT. It takes a bit of the edge off the racing though in my view.

More importantly, they have a gazillion classes. At VIR, they may get 40 cars for a race, but they have 10 classes or so. JP is pretty popular, but only 3-4 JP cars usually show up (typically ITS cars).

I run the TR8 in vintage on occasion for a change of pace, and I suspect that is what most ITS/JP crossovers do.

But if you want real, hard, season long (BMWCCA schedule is a bit light) competition, SCCA it is.

I really hope these guys don't take their BMWs to CCA exclusively. I like having them with us.

Hey -- JP guys, what is the race weight for a JP BMW E36 325?

robits325is

10-26-2005, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Oct 26 2005, 06:04 PM
Hey -- JP guys, what is the race weight for a JP BMW E36 325?

63708

2,900 without a restrictor

2,850 in ITS trim without a restrictor

BMWE46ITS

10-26-2005, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Oct 26 2005, 04:41 PM-->
Nope. Been there, done that. Went to Speedsource before the 2004 ARRC...why? You have to have the best of the best to run at the ARRC.

63695
[/b]
So Speedsource builds all the motors for the 04 car?

There not a lighter wheel combo out on the market??

You guys running motec??

What about your the shock combo?

It looked to me you found alot of time over the winter .7 sec at NHIS and about .5 sec at Lime Rock, and I'm sure he could have gone faster with some BMW competition. I was really impressed with that NHIS time wow that's flyin great job Nick-

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 04:41 PM
Faster at some tracks, not as fast as others.

63695

Really!! where was the 04 car slower? Pocono ?? Draft??

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 04:41 PM
Just because the results showed close racing doesn't erase the fact that you guys could do it with less than 'optimal' power.

63695

No we didn't have Motec in our cars in 04 but they were built to the hill with alot of dyno time and suspension development. I'll put the my cars handling against any BMW in the Country ( thanks Scott ) Maybe we were giving up 10 HP to the guys down south, but we had just enough power to win the championship.

Andy Bettencourt

10-26-2005, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Oct 26 2005, 06:35 PM
So Speedsource builds all the motors for the 04 car?

There not a lighter wheel combo out on the market??

You guys running motec??

What about your the shock combo?

It looked to me you found alot of time over the winter .7 sec at NHIS and about .5 sec at Lime Rock, and I'm sure he could have gone faster with some BMW competition. I was really impressed with that NHIS time wow that's flyin great job Nick-

Really!! where was the 04 car slower? Pocono ?? Draft??
No we didn't have Motec in our cars in 04 but they were built to the hill with alot of dyno time and suspension development. I'll put the my cars handling against any BMW in the Country ( thanks Scott ) Maybe we were giving up 10 HP to the guys down south, but we had just enough power to win the championship.

63713

Speedsource does the initial builds and we do the refreshening.

We are running the Fuel Management system that makes the most power for us...and we have had a custom MoTec on the car.

What about the shock combo?

So...you MAY be giving up 10hp...lets say you are. If Nick's RX-7 was leaving 10hp on the table, it wouldn't have been in the same ballpark.

What gives BMW guys without fully developed stuff the right to have the fastest cars? What gives BMW guys WITH the fully developed stuff the right to run over everyone else? It's about leveling the playing field - taking away an ufair advantage. Only BMW guys are complaining...and I believe it to be self-serving and short-sighted. Show me a guy who thinks the E36 325 isn't light that has no dog in the hunt.

If the E36 were classed today, we would use a 25% multiplier over stock hp to estimate power in IT form. This is a common number, some (like a rotary or some HondAcuras) make more and we use 30% or even 35%. Some make less so we use 20%. It's imperfect, but based on actual evidence. 25% is EASILY backed up by dyno sheets and crank hp numbers on the 325 - and frankly is a little conservative.

You run it through the rest of the process, like everything else we have over the past 2 years, and it needs to weigh 3100ish to fit into ITS. I can't stress enough that this is WITHOUT a RP. I hate RP's. I would hope to use them only in extreme cases where weight is too much to manage.

I don't see where the disconnect is. Really.

Ron Earp

10-26-2005, 07:18 PM

J prepared.

Do people that race BMW CCA really convert back to SCCA ITS specs when they jump? Really? I remember reading in an eariler BMW CCA report about a couple of SE BMW CCA racers who went to race SCCA ITA at VIR for the first time this year and did well. But, J Prepared rules have some important differences:

*Throttle bodies, air horns, and intake plenums are free

*AFMs can be upgraded in size with another BMW AFM

*Camshaft lift and duration may be changed from stock. Cam gears and valve springs are free

*Motor and transmission mounts may be changed for strength

*Rotors are free

These are some damn big changes if you ask me! If I had some of these items on the we could turn Jeff's TR8 into an overdog and you'll be declassing that thing in 2006. Rotors and cam would do it for us!

Anyhow, so J Preppared BMW folks really swap out cams before an ITS race?

Ron

Bill Miller

10-26-2005, 08:33 PM

I agree, I wish we didn’t have all this restrictor plate BS and we could have run our car another year.

Jeff,

Do I read that right? You guys stayed home because of the restirctor plate?

As far as this JP vs ITS issue, could some of the BMW guys tell me how much more HP a top JP motor will make, over a top ITS motor.

And damn, both Jake AND Darin saying nice things about me, in the SAME THREAD. Where the hell am I??? :D :P

mlytle

10-26-2005, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 27 2005, 12:33 AM
Jeff,

Do I read that right? You guys stayed home because of the restirctor plate?
As far as this JP vs ITS issue, could some of the BMW guys tell me how much more HP a top JP motor will make, over a top ITS motor.

63730

20hp or so more in jp trim, at the rear wheels.

and to an earlier question, no, people don't move from jp to its. you would have to change (downgrade) too many items..cams, injectors, light flywheel, brakes, wheels, rear wing, front splitter, and more. some of us its cars do race our cars as is with the jp cars though, at a huge disadvantage.

lateapex911

10-26-2005, 09:25 PM

I saw that too....

Logic would deduce that they took a built motor of known HP, and retested it with the plate, and attempted mods to reduce the plates effect.

So, the question is, how much power did the plate cut? So much that the decision was made to drop the E36s, and get two E46s??

mlytle

10-26-2005, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Oct 26 2005, 10:04 PM
Jake, BMWCCA racing is in my view ...interesting. They have a 13/13 rule, which has some merit but also would not work in IT. It takes a bit of the edge off the racing though in my view.

More importantly, they have a gazillion classes. At VIR, they may get 40 cars for a race, but they have 10 classes or so. JP is pretty popular, but only 3-4 JP cars usually show up (typically ITS cars).

I run the TR8 in vintage on occasion for a change of pace, and I suspect that is what most ITS/JP crossovers do.

But if you want real, hard, season long (BMWCCA schedule is a bit light) competition, SCCA it is.

I really hope these guys don't take their BMWs to CCA exclusively. I like having them with us.

Hey -- JP guys, what is the race weight for a JP BMW E36 325?

63708

you must not have been to any recent bmwcca races at vir jeff. 80-100 car fields. 15-20 jp cars.

yes, i do bmwcca races as a fun change from scca. i am one of those its/jp crossovers. so far, more competition in scca, and its cars are just plain dog slow compared to a full tilt jp car. (see my other post listing what jp cars can do that its can't)

but, if scca keeps f'ing with the bmw in its, it will be more fun to change my car to jp rules and go race somewhere else...a lot faster. the competition in bmwcca has gotten much better since the jp fields have been growing like crazy. once the move to jp has been done with a car, it ain't worth undoing the mods to come back to scca with a slower car.

and no this has nothing to do with its weight...just general market factors for its. several sanctioning bodies are competing for the same racers.

robits325is

10-26-2005, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 07:17 PM
What gives BMW guys without fully developed stuff the right to have the fastest cars? What gives BMW guys WITH the fully developed stuff the right to run over everyone else? It's about leveling the playing field - taking away an ufair advantage. Only BMW guys are complaining...and I believe it to be self-serving and short-sighted. Show me a guy who thinks the E36 325 isn't light that has no dog in the hunt.

If the E36 were classed today, we would use a 25% multiplier over stock hp to estimate power in IT form. This is a common number, some (like a rotary or some HondAcuras) make more and we use 30% or even 35%. Some make less so we use 20%. It's imperfect, but based on actual evidence. 25% is EASILY backed up by dyno sheets and crank hp numbers on the 325 - and frankly is a little conservative.

63715

The problem isn't with the top BMWs (or any other make) being reeled in. The problem is with everyone else that is affected by these broad scale adjustments. Not every BMW is a 100% build - but a majority of its competitors arn't even close to 100% builds either. There are lots of variables that make a difference; car prep, track layout, weather conditions and most importantly driver experience. Not every BMW that touches the track wins - there are plenty of mid pack and back BMWs.

BMW drivers are the only ones complaining because BMW drivers are the only group that has been affected. If the goal is to create class parity then the top 2 or 3 makes in each class should receive adjustments. The December Fasttrack didnt have any mention of the new proposal and nobody has mentioned any specifics on what is being presented. Why is it such a secret?

Andy Bettencourt

10-26-2005, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by robits325is@Oct 26 2005, 09:47 PM
The problem isn't with the top BMWs (or any other make) being reeled in. The problem is with everyone else that is affected by these broad scale adjustments. Not every BMW is a 100% build - but a majority of its competitors arn't even close to 100% builds either. There are lots of variables that make a difference; car prep, track layout, weather conditions and most importantly driver experience. Not every BMW that touches the track wins - there are plenty of mid pack and back BMWs.

BMW drivers are the only ones complaining because BMW drivers are the only group that has been affected. If the goal is to create class parity then the top 2 or 3 makes in each class should receive adjustments. The December Fasttrack didnt have any mention of the new proposal and nobody has mentioned any specifics on what is being presented. Why is it such a secret?

63745

Rob,

You have to class cars based on their potential. You have to class them based on a 100% effort. I don't believe we have to get into the reasoning for this...it's obvious.

BMW drivers feel like they are being 'attacked' when in reality they are not. They are proud owners of a car that DOESN'T fit the class. Of the top 4 makes in ITS, only one doesn't fit. And that issue is supported by data, both on the track and off.

I can't say it any clearer. Any non ITAC/BMW owner care to weigh in?

On the "proposal"...it isn't a secret, we have mentioned it here many times with our goals. It just hasn't been run up the CRB/BoD flagpole as of yet. It's on the next meeting agenda. Oh ya, the BMW IS NOT on it for a change. We feel it is in the best interest of everyone if we have a complete year of data with the RP in place before we recommend making any changes. Kinda turns the black helicoptor a differnt color, huh?

AB

lateapex911

10-26-2005, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by mlytle@Oct 26 2005, 09:35 PM

but, if scca keeps f'ing with the bmw in its, .............

........and no this has nothing to do with its weight...just general market factors for its. several sanctioning bodies are competing for the same racers.

63742

Clearly I must be missing the logic here, as it seems that it DOES have to do with it's (f'ed with) weight...

robits325is

10-26-2005, 10:30 PM

Andy,

We are not accusing you personally for what has happened - I don't care what color your helicopter is. We all appreciate what you and the ITAC are trying to do. We know that you have had a problem with the Horsepower and the BMW since we first started racing in 2002. We arn't against leveling the playing field but if there are adjustments in ITS and the RX-7 is not on the list then we will be forced to release Stewart from his holding cell in Jeffs basement.

Bill Miller

10-27-2005, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by mlytle@Oct 26 2005, 09:24 PM
20hp or so more in jp trim, at the rear wheels.

and to an earlier question, no, people don't move from jp to its. you would have to change (downgrade) too many items..cams, injectors, light flywheel, brakes, wheels, rear wing, front splitter, and more. some of us its cars do race our cars as is with the jp cars though, at a huge disadvantage.

63739

So that's what, somewhere in the 235-240 WHP range? And the JP car only weighs 50# more (and you get to do all that other cool stuff to the JP car). I would expect the ITS cars to get their lunch eaten by the JP cars. What's really funny, is that I seem to recall a request, a few months back, to allow cars prepped to BMWCCA rules, to run in IT, as is.

And for only a 50# weight penalty, you get to put all those neat go-fast goodies on the car, and run JP. Why would anybody build these as ITS cars?

And you can't really level the playing field with rules (w/ the possible exception of spec classes). The goal here, is to spec the cars w/in a defined performance envelope. The rest is really up to the ability of the driver to prep/drive the car. I can't count how many times and ways that the ITAC guys here have said, the E36 325, at it's current weight, does not fit that performance envelope. The fact that less than 10/10ths cars (and drivers) can do so well w/ these cars, only reinforces the fact that the car doesn't fit the performance envelope for ITS.

But, from what Andy has said, sounds like you guys get another year before anything is going to happen.

Greg Amy

10-27-2005, 07:13 AM

Any non ITAC/BMW owner care to weigh in?Didn't really want to, as you guys are/were covering it quite well, until I read...

Originally posted by robits325is@Oct 26 2005, 10:30 PM
...if there are adjustments in ITS and the RX-7 is not on the list then we will be forced to release Stewart from his holding cell in Jeffs basement.

63755

HELLO!! McFly?!?!?

Dude, are you DENSE??? The BMW enjoys a SIGNIFICANT performance advantage in NUMEROUS ways, horsepower-to-weight being the obvious one! I got a real giggle about the "sports car versus family sedan" comment; dude, do you REALLY think the 'rest of the world' thinks you're driving a Toyota Camry???

So, the BMW enjoys this significant advantage, is being considered for parity adjustments, and you're asking that the rest of the world get taken down a notch with it? So, it's OK if the BMW gets performance adjustments as long as its performance advantage is maintained? Whaaaa....?

Holy Christ, bud! Do you really think everyone else is that stupid???

You have an AWESOME car, VERY well built, and with any mid-range driver has an high-probabilty chance of winning just about any race. The questions are usually not which car will win, but which BMW will win. THIS IS UNFAIR, THIS IS INEQUITABLE. THIS IS NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. WITH ANY REASONABLE CERTAINTY, THIS WILL BE CHANGED.

Sorry for the rant, man, but some of these comments make me feel like we're talking to a two-year-old...I can understand you're not being happy with losing your dominant position, but if you REALLY think you're getting shat on, you want to thorwo a tantrum, and you want to move over to BMWCCA where you think the playing field is more level, that's fine and good, we'll miss you. However, just don't expect folks from this side of the fence to feel any empathy for you.

Argh! Time to go back to MY basement holding cell...

Ron Earp

10-27-2005, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by mlytle@Oct 27 2005, 01:24 AM
20hp or so more in jp trim, at the rear wheels.

and to an earlier question, no, people don't move from jp to its. you would have to change (downgrade) too many items..cams, injectors, light flywheel, brakes, wheels, rear wing, front splitter, and more. some of us its cars do race our cars as is with the jp cars though, at a huge disadvantage.

63739

Two drivers did definitely do that in the Spring, it is chronicled in the regional BMW rag that I get here in the SE. I'll see if I can dig it out. I distinctly remember they were BMW racers who decided to "try the waters" of the SCCA and showed they could run with the best. Thing is, if they were indeed J Prepared they weren't running on equal footing, that is for damn sure.

Ron

JeffYoung

10-27-2005, 08:15 AM

Ron, in all fairness to those guys, I think they were ITS-prepared cars to begin with that sometimes run BMWCCA in JP (at a distinct disadvantage).

BMWE46ITS

10-27-2005, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by rlearp@Oct 26 2005, 07:18 PM
J prepared.

Do people that race BMW CCA really convert back to SCCA ITS specs when they jump? Really? I remember reading in an eariler BMW CCA report about a couple of SE BMW CCA racers who went to race SCCA ITA at VIR for the first time this year and did well. But, J Prepared rules have some important differences:

*Throttle bodies, air horns, and intake plenums are free

*AFMs can be upgraded in size with another BMW AFM

*Camshaft lift and duration may be changed from stock. Cam gears and valve springs are free

*Motor and transmission mounts may be changed for strength

*Rotors are free

These are some damn big changes if you ask me! If I had some of these items on the we could turn Jeff's TR8 into an overdog and you'll be declassing that thing in 2006. Rotors and cam would do it for us!

Anyhow, so J Preppared BMW folks really swap out cams before an ITS race?

Ron

63716

Ron, you can run the car two ways in JP for BMW CCA, you can run it as a legal ITS SCCA car with out the restrictor at 2,850 ( remember headers are legal in SCCA and not JP) or you can run it as a Full JP car with cams, larger mass air, larger T-body, Aero Kit, 17 inch wheels, Larger brakes and ABS!!! yes ABS!!! with a weight of 2,900. Yes I agree a full JP should beat a SCCA ITS car hands down, but they made this rule so you can have a crossover car and not touch a thing( except remove the RP).

BMWE46ITS

10-27-2005, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 26 2005, 09:25 PM
I saw that too....

Logic would deduce that they took a built motor of known HP, and retested it with the plate, and attempted mods to reduce the plates effect.

So, the question is, how much power did the plate cut? So much that the decision was made to drop the E36s, and get two E46s??

63740

No that's not it I never tested the plate till after I sold the cars, our cars needed some work after 3 years of racing and we decided to switch over to the newer body and develop the new car. The new body will help us out with the marketing part of our business. BTW we still have one team E-36 car driven by John Stewart. Red 11

BMWE46ITS

10-27-2005, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by GregAmy@Oct 27 2005, 07:13 AM
Dude, are you DENSE??? The BMW enjoys a SIGNIFICANT performance advantage in NUMEROUS ways, horsepower-to-weight being the obvious one! I got a real giggle about the "sports car versus family sedan" comment; dude, do you REALLY think the 'rest of the world' thinks you're driving a Toyota Camry???

63776

Please compile a list of track records across the country and see which car is on top and get back to me.

Originally posted by GregAmy+Oct 27 2005, 07:13 AM-->
So, the BMW enjoys this significant advantage, is being considered for parity adjustments, and you're asking that the rest of the world get taken down a notch with it? So, it's OK if the BMW gets performance adjustments as long as its performance advantage is maintained? Whaaaa....?

63776
[/b]
What do you think would have happen if Kip raced his Porsche 944s this year for the full year? Results might have been different right, or at least I know it would have been some good racing up front!! Fast driver with a great car builder= front running car.

Originally posted by GregAmy@Oct 27 2005, 07:13 AM
Holy Christ, bud! Do you really think everyone else is that stupid???

63776

Please don’t take the lords name in vain.

Originally posted by GregAmy@Oct 27 2005, 07:13 AM
You have an AWESOME car, VERY well built, and with any mid-range driver has an high-probabilty chance of winning just about any race. The questions are usually not which car will win, but which BMW will win. THIS IS UNFAIR, THIS IS INEQUITABLE. THIS IS NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. WITH ANY REASONABLE CERTAINTY, THIS WILL BE CHANGED.

63776

Thanks for telling us we build nice cars, but are you telling me were mid-range drivers?

<!--QuoteBegin-GregAmy@Oct 27 2005, 07:13 AM
Sorry for the rant, man, but some of these comments make me feel like we're talking to a two-year-old...I can understand you're not being happy with losing your dominant position, but if you REALLY think you're getting shat on, you want to thorwo a tantrum, and you want to move over to BMWCCA where you think the playing field is more level, that's fine and good, we'll miss you. However, just don't expect folks from this side of the fence to feel any empathy for you.

63776

That’s what this board if for, lets get it out now, so I don’t have to punt any cars come spring time ( joking)

mlytle

10-27-2005, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 27 2005, 04:47 AM
So that's what, somewhere in the 235-240 WHP range? And the JP car only weighs 50# more (and you get to do all that other cool stuff to the JP car). I would expect the ITS cars to get their lunch eaten by the JP cars. What's really funny, is that I seem to recall a request, a few months back, to allow cars prepped to BMWCCA rules, to run in IT, as is.

And for only a 50# weight penalty, you get to put all those neat go-fast goodies on the car, and run JP. Why would anybody build these as ITS cars?

63767

heck no, allowing jp cars into its would be stupid! not sure where you saw that request. there has been an ongoing issue in the bmwcca about ways to make the its cars more competitive in bmwcca, not the other way around.

why? because until the last year or so, the competition in scca has been better and the number of races in a given area is higher (i race in the wdcr...10 race marrs series vs. 3 bmwcca races). this past year has seen major increases in the competitiveness and number of e36 325's in bmw cca. the landscape is definitely changing. so now your question is a valid one. why would we build its cars?

Greg Amy

10-27-2005, 11:22 AM

Please don't avoid the issues.

...compile a list of track records across the country...

Is that your standard, the number of track records? So, as a car gets a track record it gets weight? What about when it eventually loses the track record; does it get the weight removed?

Sorry, wrong answer.

...if Kip raced his Porsche 944S? Results might have been different...

What does this have to do with the issue about the 325's power-to-weight versus the RX-7's?

And using results as a benchmark? Sorry, wrong answer.

...are you telling me were mid-range drivers?

You are far too sensitive.

I watched a very talented newly-licensed driver do IMPRESSIVELY well this year in a 325 that - as I understand it - is not fully developed. Was it the car? Was it the driver? Was it a combination of both? Could he have done as well in Nick's RX-7? What if those two swapped cars; whadya guess would happen? If we want to use this example as a benchmark, it doesn't bode well for the BMW camp's arguments of perceived parity.

Let's try something different. Let's try a benchmark based on technicals. Further, let's ignore "potential" and go straight-weight with manufacturer's new car number (interrupt me if you've heard this before, a jillion times):

1995 BMW 325. Manufacturer's rated horsepower, 189; torque 184. Current ITS weight = 2850; 15.08 lb/hp, 15.49 lb/ft-lb torque
1991 Mazda RX-7. Manufacturer's rated horsepower, 160; torque 140. Current ITS weight = 2680; 16.75 lb/hp, 19.14 lb/ft-lb torque

Again, let's ignore that fact that the 325 is getting well over 200 ponies to the wheels in IT trim while the best RX-7 is getting 170. Let's even ignore the fact that the BMW I-6 has a bodacious torque curve while the Mazda rotary has none. Let's just make these cars even using OEM numbers, shall we? Let's even up:

- the power to weight on the cars by either making the Mazda 2415 pounds or the BMW 3156
- the torque-to-weight by either making the Mazda 2170 pounds or the BMW 3520 pounds
- the average between the two: make the RX-7 weigh 2300 pounds or the 325 weigh 3330 pounds.

And, let's have you choose which one you want. Go ahead, it's your choice, whichever one you want! Oh, wait, that's right: you think they're already evened up...

Do you really expect this crowd to show empathy for your terrible situation?

Catch22

10-27-2005, 12:12 PM

Hey Greg,

Throw the Integra GSR in there too. Same power and torque as the RX7 but it has MUCH smaller brakes and does everything with the front tires.
Oh, and it has to weigh 10 pounds MORE than the RX7.

Awwwww.... Those poor BMW guys.
I'm ruining my keyboard with the tears.

Scott, who thinks the BMW situation is no different than ANY situation where a class somehow ends up with a dominant car... Thats where 90% of the money and the talent goes, making the situation even WORSE in terms of results.

BMWE46ITS

10-27-2005, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by GregAmy+Oct 27 2005, 11:22 AM-->
Please don't avoid the issues.
Is that your standard, the number of track records? So, as a car gets a track record it gets weight? What about when it eventually loses the track record; does it get the weight removed?

63815
[/b]

So track records don’t mean anything to you? I guess we have to disagree on this one. I just can’t understand how you can say a car that holds 4 track records is not competitive. The Mazda is very fast car and you can win with a top level car and top driver.

BTW: Can we all agree the long course at the Glen is a H.P. track?? Then how can a RX-7 hold the track record if it’s ALL ABOUT POWER?? I also think we can agree that John Stewart (Auto Technic) and Ed York (York Automotive) drive some of the top prepared BMWs in the country, and they know the Glen really well (both have held or still hold track records at the Glen) so how can a Mazda have the track record in 2005 if it’s SUCH A UNDER DOG.

Originally posted by GregAmy@Oct 27 2005, 11:22 AM
Sorry, wrong answer.
What does this have to do with the issue about the 325's power-to-weight versus the RX-7's?

63815

All I’m saying is a 944s built right with a good driver can win also.

<!--QuoteBegin-GregAmy@Oct 27 2005, 11:22 AM
Let's try something different. Let's try a benchmark based on technicals.
1995 BMW 325. Manufacturer's rated horsepower, 189; torque 184. Current ITS weight = 2850; 15.08 lb/hp, 15.49 lb/ft-lb torque
1991 Mazda RX-7. Manufacturer's rated horsepower, 160; torque 140. Current ITS weight = 2680; 16.75 lb/hp, 19.14 lb/ft-lb torque

63815

We finally agree this is what we should be using to figure things out. I will agree the BMW has a power advantage, but you have to factor in items like brake size, how many pistons per brake caliper, basic suspension design. I also feel weight has the largest affect on race car, it really affect everything, handling, braking and acceleration over a 25 lap race.

OK were off to the BMW CCA race this weekend at NHIS, hope it warms up.

benspeed

10-27-2005, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by robits325is@Oct 27 2005, 02:30 AM
then we will be forced to release Stewart from his holding cell in Jeffs basement.

63755

Made me laugh my butt off! C'mon John, give us a helluva good rant! :D

BMWE46ITS

10-27-2005, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by benspeed@Oct 27 2005, 04:04 PM
Made me laugh my butt off! C'mon John, give us a helluva good rant! :D

63839

Stewart has a new job and the server at his office won't let him write on improvedtouring.com, so I think were all safe for awhile. I know it would be alot more fun with him here, maybe we should get him a nice laptop for the winter.

Ben Speed what’s your take on all this, you’re a reasonable guy and I know you know alot about the specs on all the cars involved, PLUS you actually race in ITS!!!! . What's your take on ITS racing in the NE for the 2004 and 2005 season?

Andy Bettencourt

10-27-2005, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Oct 27 2005, 03:41 PM
So track records don’t mean anything to you? I guess we have to disagree on this one. I just can’t understand how you can say a car that holds 4 track records is not competitive. The Mazda is very fast car and you can win with a top level car and top driver.

BTW: Can we all agree the long course at the Glen is a H.P. track?? Then how can a RX-7 hold the track record if it’s ALL ABOUT POWER?? I also think we can agree that John Stewart (Auto Technic) and Ed York (York Automotive) drive some of the top prepared BMWs in the country, and they know the Glen really well (both have held or still hold track records at the Glen) so how can a Mazda have the track record in 2005 if it’s SUCH A UNDER DOG.
All I’m saying is a 944s built right with a good driver can win also.
We finally agree this is what we should be using to figure things out. I will agree the BMW has a power advantage, but you have to factor in items like brake size, how many pistons per brake caliper, basic suspension design. I also feel weight has the largest affect on race car, it really affect everything, handling, braking and acceleration over a 25 lap race.

OK were off to the BMW CCA race this weekend at NHIS, hope it warms up.

63838

Tell me the top prep cars that run on the tracks Nick holds the records on. When was York's SPRINT car (now sold) run at WGI? The enduro car is less than the machine he rocked with at the 2004 ARRC in Qualifying. I will not agree that Stewie's car is one of the top prepped. Does it have the 10hp your cars didn't?

The RX-7 IS NOT AN UNDERDOG. It is right where an ITS car should be. The BMW, when prepped to it's potential, is more than the class was meant to handle. The real power track is Pocono. The same one that Your boy Driscoll took two wins at against Nick.

Let Stewie out of his cage, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. And if he goes off like he did the last time, he will continue to soil the good name you have built over the past years.

This is such a dead horse.

AB

ed325its

10-27-2005, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by GregAmy@Oct 27 2005, 03:22 PM
I watched a very talented newly-licensed driver do IMPRESSIVELY well this year in a 325 that - as I understand it - is not fully developed. Was it the car? Was it the driver? Was it a combination of both? Could he have done as well in Nick's RX-7? What if those two swapped cars; whadya guess would happen? If we want to use this example as a benchmark, it doesn't bode well for the BMW camp's arguments of perceived parity.

63815

Greg,

This is conjecture and an invalid argument to prove any point. In my opinion it adds no proof to the statement "doesn't bode well for the BMW camp's arguements".

If I am thinking of the same driver as to you are refering, and I do not want and will not bring names into this example, he would kick the fields but in an RX7 as well prepared as the #04.

Since I took most of the '05 season off for family reasons we may not be thinking of the same drivers.

See you next season.

BMWE46ITS

10-27-2005, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Oct 27 2005, 05:22 PM-->
I will not agree that Stewie's car is one of the top prepped. Does it have the 10hp your cars didn't?

63852
[/b]

10 HP makes that big of a differance in your mind? The only thing Stewart doesn't have is Motec, and that time at the Glen was BEFORE the restictor. So if your car doesn't have Motec or EFI how are you saying they don't compare sounds to me they have the same level of prep. Why doesn't your car have lighter wheels on it, if it had the best of the best??

I dont' know much about Yorks car except its super fast at the Glen and it was on the pole at the ARRC, and Nick beat the track record with a RX7. BTW we all know Nick is a fast clean driver and we have had great races in the past.

What about Kips cars you wouldn't call them fast, I think Kip went faster in the Mazda then his BMW at Lime Rock and at NHIS, and wasn't his BMW on the Pole at the ARRC also.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 27 2005, 05:22 PM
The RX-7 IS NOT AN UNDERDOG. It is right where an ITS car should be. The BMW, when prepped to it's potential, is more than the class was meant to handle. The real power track is Pocono. The same one that Your boy Driscoll took two wins at against Nick.

63852

Rob won by two car lenghts both races and Nick had a faster lap in race one and race two on a HP track. It was a close and awsome race I have the video if you want to borrow it.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 27 2005, 05:22 PM
Let Stewie out of his cage, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. And if he goes off like he did the last time, he will continue to soil the good name you have built over the past years.

63852

Andy you know this is all a joke about Stewart were just trying to lighting up the mood around here.
<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Oct 27 2005, 05:22 PM
This is such a dead horse.

63852

I agree leave the car alone with the plate and lets go racing!! Andy and all have a great weekend, I'm out the door for NHIS right now.

Banzai240

10-27-2005, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Oct 27 2005, 10:42 PM
10 HP makes that big of a differance in your mind?
63859

Are you serious??? Let's look at that... The E46 makes 172hp stock, and is classified at 3000lbs... The E36 makes 189hp stock, and we are saying it should be about 200lbs more... So YES, 10hp makes a VERY big difference...

Think in terms of wt/hp... If the target is 15:1, then you are talking about 150lbs for 10hp...

Simple, APPLIED math... ;)

Andy Bettencourt

10-27-2005, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Oct 27 2005, 06:42 PM
10 HP makes that big of a differance in your mind? The only thing Stewart doesn't have is Motec, and that time at the Glen was BEFORE the restictor. So if your car doesn't have Motec or EFI how are you saying they don't compare sounds to me they have the same level of prep. Why doesn't your car have lighter wheels on it, if it had the best of the best??

I dont' know much about Yorks car except its super fast at the Glen and it was on the pole at the ARRC, and Nick beat the track record with a RX7. BTW we all know Nick is a fast clean driver and we have had great races in the past.

What about Kips cars you wouldn't call them fast, I think Kip went faster in the Mazda then his BMW at Lime Rock and at NHIS, and wasn't his BMW on the Pole at the ARRC also.
Rob won by two car lenghts both races and Nick had a faster lap in race one and race two on a HP track. It was a close and awsome race I have the video if you want to borrow it.

Andy you know this is all a joke about Stewart were just trying to lighting up the mood around here.

I agree leave the car alone with the plate and lets go racing!! Andy and all have a great weekend, I'm out the door for NHIS right now.

63859

We could bicker back and forth on the issues forever. I can couterpoint everything you have said. Let me just ask you this:

Do you think it is the correct move for the class to have the 325's power to weight in line with the rest of the class? The disadvantage that the extra weight would carry above and beyond equalizing the numbers, would, IMHO be offset by the huge torque advantge the car has ove the other benchmark cars.

Just because things may be equal in your area doesn't mean they are on the grand stage.

AB

benspeed

10-27-2005, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Oct 27 2005, 08:57 PM
Stewart has a new job and the server at his office won't let him write on improvedtouring.com, so I think were all safe for awhile. I know it would be alot more fun with him here, maybe we should get him a nice laptop for the winter.

Ben Speed what’s your take on all this, you’re a reasonable guy and I know you know alot about the specs on all the cars involved, PLUS you actually race in ITS!!!! . What's your take on ITS racing in the NE for the 2004 and 2005 season?

63846

Well, you know I love buring up sackfulls of $$ on this game. If I hadn't bought Kip's RX7 in January 2004 I would absolutely be running a top prepped BMW and I would be royally pissed that a plate got hung on it. I still wonder if I shouldn't buy one even with the plate. (If you guys could sell as well as you drive I'd have bought one of your cars! ;) ) I will run my Mazda one more year since it has had every single component replaced since I bought it and then move to a national class. Likely T2 or E Prod.

If I was planning on staying in ITS I'd go BMW. Granted my Mazda is a pretty top prepped car - not at the level of Nick's but certainly up there with very little to be done besides motech and mega time on the dyno fuel mapping. I will say that while my and his cars dyno close, he's got his fuel map dialed in so well that he's pulling my car in a big way at lower RPMs. That is because of a huge investment in time and $$ on development that nobody else has equalled here in the NE. Oh, and he's fast as heck - let's not downplay the driver. I don't think I'd beat his times jumping into his car. Anyway, I still think the bimmer is a better car - many reasons already covered.

Here's an example of why. I will say that a BMW driver and I were always very close at NHIS - and I could tell he was slower this year because of the plate. Particularly going up the hill. However, even with the plate, once he got around me coming out of 12 onto the straight, I felt that I was faster into the turns but he could still outpower me out of the corners. You know why you guys called me banzai ben - I could only pass you bmw guys diving into a corner. Even with a great exit I couldn't put down the power of a bimmer and that gives the bimmer track position that will be extrodinarily hard to beat. You have to banzai hard and then get an awesome exit to complete the pass - very tough to do. Because of that I think that a well prepped bimmer will have that track position advantage, even with a plate. Give me that corner exit power over marginal weight advantage.

I've driven several bimmers and think they are just much better driving cars and rue the day I stayed with the RX7. I always tell folks I hate these friggin tin can Mazdas but they do make good race cars and are much cheaper than bimmers.

My point is that if I hadn't committed to the Mazda and burned up so much in repairs, I would have a very highly prepped bimmer and probably be a tougher guy to beat because of the track position advantage. I'd buy a bimmer because I feel it's got a significant advantage in the way it drives, torque, hp, chassis - the only thing that isn't the best is weight. But the brakes a pretty damn good - it's not like the Acura brakes.

Do I think the restrictor is bogus? Sure. If there was no restrictor I'd buy a bimmer. :D (I still troll ebay for E36 chassis regularly - How much for the Autotechnic ITS conversion and setup? I'll own both and can make '06 a comparison year.)

In addition to the track mannerisms, specs wise I think the car is significantly dominant. If there was no restrictor rule I bet I could build a bimmer and with nominal development match my Mazda. A front running bimmer with a junkyard motor (several junk motors over the season) was competitive all year here in the NE. When they build a solid motor this winter, lookout!

Great luck with the E46 at NHIS - looking forward to getting some times from you guys and hearing how well the 3D guys run also. Looking forward to you guys being on track and racing with us again in '06. I hope you beat your old times so the whole E46 effort is worth it.

I'm now going back to Autotrader and Ebay for the cheap E36 I've been looking for. Who can build me a cage for a good price???? But I'm not selling the Mazda - it's now plated in gold after the $$ I spent getting it reliable.

lateapex911

10-27-2005, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by benspeed@Oct 27 2005, 10:37 PM
........But I'm not selling the Mazda - it's now plated in gold after the $$ I spent getting it reliable.

63871

LOL...great post....

I know Kip didn't sell that car for chump change, and with the above quote, maybe you should change the name from "Big Speed Racing" to "Big Spend Racing"...

;)

Kidding, of course!

So, lets say you DID get an E36 a year or so ago, and you were pissed about the changes that have been applied and those that may be coming. You'd be pissed as you said, but would you understand?

Andy Bettencourt

10-27-2005, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by benspeed@Oct 27 2005, 10:37 PM
In addition to the track mannerisms, specs wise I think the car is significantly dominant. If there was no restrictor rule I bet I could build a bimmer and with nominal development match my Mazda. A front running bimmer with a junkyard motor (several junk motors over the season) was competitive all year here in the NE. When they build a solid motor this winter, lookout!

63871

Ask for an unbias opinion, and get one!

:o

AB

benspeed

10-28-2005, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 28 2005, 03:35 AM
LOL...great post....

I know Kip didn't sell that car for chump change, and with the above quote, maybe you should change the name from "Big Speed Racing" to "Big Spend Racing"...

;)
Kidding, of course!

So, lets say you DID get an E36 a year or so ago, and you were pissed about the changes that have been applied and those that may be coming. You'd be pissed as you said, but would you understand?

63876

LOL!!! My wife would rename it BigIdiot racing or "You could drive a Porsche C4S for the money you spent". BigSpend Racing - my sponsor may bum on that. Oh yeah, that would be ME! :(

I tell ya - got those bimmer juices going again - whos got one for me?

benspeed

10-28-2005, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 28 2005, 03:35 AM
You'd be pissed as you said, but would you understand?

63876

Forget to comment here - yes, I would be pissed. But I would outspend my competitors and win anyway! (More money than talent Racing, LLC - speed can be bought, but not brains)
:smilie_pokal:

mlytle

10-28-2005, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 27 2005, 09:22 PM
Tell me the top prep cars that run on the tracks Nick holds the records on. When was York's SPRINT car (now sold) run at WGI? The enduro car is less than the machine he rocked with at the 2004 ARRC in Qualifying.
AB

63852

ed york only drove his enduro car at the glen for this years july race. he has driven his max prepped sprint car there all races previously.

lateapex911

10-28-2005, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by benspeed@Oct 28 2005, 10:54 AM
LOL!!! My wife would rename it BigIdiot racing or "You could drive a Porsche C4S for the money you spent". BigSpend Racing - my sponsor may bum on that. Oh yeah, that would be ME! :(

63894

ROTFLMAO...

I bet you do what an old client of mine always did...

The first time I met him, he walked in off the street with his wife,, and said he wanted to convert a room into a little home theatre...He looked well monied, and his wife was wearing a new watch with a tennis braclet band sporting dozens (and dozens) of diamonds.....

I had a hunch...quoted him a moderate theatre of about 80K. He looked at the proposal, listened to my explanations, nodded, and said, "How did you come to the bottom line??"

I started explaining (the obvious) I added the stuff up, some labor and......

He intereupted..."No, how did you decide to sell me a system that costs $70K, rather than $30K or $100K.???"

Hmmm..I talked about how it seemed that it was the appropitate level for the quality he was after...

He shook his head no, smiled, and said, "Not buying it..."

"OK," I admitted..."Your wife was showing off her new watch when you were in, and I figured it was a bribe of sorts...so I thought something of equal value would work."

He laughed, smiled, and said.."Bingo! Order the stuff..when can you install it all?? This is gonna be GREAT!!! "

benspeed

10-28-2005, 09:06 PM

Jake you have me pegged!

dj10

10-30-2005, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by benspeed@Oct 28 2005, 09:59 AM
I would outspend my competitors and win anyway! (More money than brains)
:smilie_pokal:

63895

benspeed, Adopt me and the hell with everthing else, lets go racing! :happy204:
dj

snowmann

10-30-2005, 01:42 PM

I think its hillarious that people with half-prepped e36's are trying to say that this will affect them because of the guys that are at full prep. You picked the class, and then built/bought a car that wasn't built to the max level of prep. Now you are going to complain that you wont be competitive anymore? When did you ever win a race? when no one with a prepped car showed up? Honestly, if you aren't going to build a car that is to the full extent of the rules then why are you racing in that paticular class? The rules are designed to be equal at the same level... if you aren't going to the same level as allowed then how do you expect to be equal. We race an e30 in its, our car will get spanked by any e36 that shows up. Its just a given, I guess I dont see what the problem is in trying to even out a field... What are you winning? are you that worried about your plastic trophy at the end of the day? There are always gonna be those "im gonna take my ball and leave" types... what can you do about it? If you are worried about the integrity, and future of IT, do you really want those people in the class in the first place?

dj10

10-30-2005, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by snowmann@Oct 30 2005, 12:42 PM
I think its hillarious that people with half-prepped e36's are trying to say that this will affect them because of the guys that are at full prep. You picked the class, and then built/bought a car that wasn't built to the max level of prep. Now you are going to complain that you wont be competitive anymore? When did you ever win a race? when no one with a prepped car showed up? Honestly, if you aren't going to build a car that is to the full extent of the rules then why are you racing in that paticular class? The rules are designed to be equal at the same level... if you aren't going to the same level as allowed then how do you expect to be equal. If you are worried about the integrity, and future of IT, do you really want those people in the class in the first place?

64021

You speak of max level prep. I don't mind anyone maxing out their car, just don't over to the dark side! The people that are using illegal cam timing, valve springs and bores, or what ever. Are these the cars that the ITAC or CRB are getting their numbers from? Some people will interpret to suite themselves knowing they are over the border line of being legal. Are these the people that will beat you? I don't know about you but I want to beat people because I drive better not because I cheat. I hope the ITAC & CRB have the legal data from Legal Cars.
dj

snowmann

10-30-2005, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by dj10@Oct 30 2005, 06:19 PM
You speak of max level prep. I don't mind anyone maxing out their car, just don't over to the dark side! The people that are using illegal cam timing, valve springs and bores, or what ever. Are these the cars that the ITAC or CRB are getting their numbers from? Some people will interpret to suite themselves knowing they are over the border line of being legal. Are these the people that will beat you? I don't know about you but I want to beat people because I drive better not because I cheat. I hope the ITAC & CRB have the legal data from Legal Cars.
dj

64026

yea thats what i was getting at, but also the fact that people are saying that the addition of a weight penalty would hurt there under prepped car more so. I beleive that a fully built rule abiding car should be dyno'ed and then they should go from there. However this is next to impossible, whos to say the competitor of a e36 wouldnt de-tune there vehicle prior to a dyno, or submit a previously de-tuned sheet. The car is clearly fast, too fast? thats why we have the big wigs i guess. I dont get what is wrong with the SCCA trying to promote close racing, and not schumacher style domination. There is a difference between driver skill and car level, ideally the driver of the e36 should be able to hop into an rx7 of equal prep and put down the same lap time right? (to a degree) Lets be honest here, how many people are actually going to give the SCCA the bird and straight up leave? and as i mentioned, do we really want that mentallity to represent the integrity of our class anyway?

I will laugh when the e36 guys in a couple of years are protesting the hell out of the new 'hot' car.

Knestis

10-30-2005, 05:01 PM

I'll just put out there that anyone who knows of an illegal ITS 325, and hasn't protested it, may well be part of the problem.

K

snowmann

10-30-2005, 07:07 PM

I like how are target range for power to weight is in the neighborhood of 15... however our car with a bmw advertised hp rating of 135, and a ITS weight of 2600 puts down a number not so close to that 15...

you do the math...

Andy Bettencourt

10-30-2005, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by snowmann@Oct 30 2005, 07:07 PM
I like how are target range for power to weight is in the neighborhood of 15... however our car with a bmw advertised hp rating of 135, and a ITS weight of 2600 puts down a number not so close to that 15...
you do the math...

64044

All we can control right now is what is newly classified, re-classified or to use PCA's to try and return some class equity if there is an glaring error...IE: weight or an RP.

If you are talking about the E30 318is - how does ITA sound? :)

AB

Geo

10-30-2005, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by snowmann@Oct 30 2005, 06:07 PM
I like how are target range for power to weight is in the neighborhood of 15... however our car with a bmw advertised hp rating of 135, and a ITS weight of 2600 puts down a number not so close to that 15...
you do the math...

64044

I won't speak to specifics, but I can tell you that 15 is just a number that was thrown out there as an example. Don't read anything into it.

lateapex911

10-30-2005, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by dj10@Oct 30 2005, 02:19 PM
You speak of max level prep. I don't mind anyone maxing out their car, just don't over to the dark side! The people that are using illegal cam timing, valve springs and bores, or what ever. Are these the cars that the ITAC or CRB are getting their numbers from? . I hope the ITAC & CRB have the legal data from Legal Cars.
dj

64026

First.........(and yes, I personally know as well as anyone of the trials and tribulations of protesting,) it's up to us to police ourselves. If you know a guy who's suspicious, it's YOUR duty to take some form of action. Have a chat..talk to tech about checking the entire class or model of cars for the infraction you suspect, band together with other drivers and bring forward a group action, or just write the papers yourself. Whatever it is, just do something....or no complaining later..;)

Second, yes, the ITAC, and (I am sure) the CRB is well aware that the numbers considered must be represntative of full on, but completely legal efforts. This is a numbers game, and while there are lots of things that happen on the track that lead one to think one thing or another, it must remembered that seeing is not always worth believing.

benspeed

10-30-2005, 11:22 PM

Let's talk about prep. I was able to grab 3rd at Nelson Ledges and have never turned a wheel there. Started dead last. BUT, I definetly had the best car there. (OK I drove 400 miles there on Sat night, raced Sunday, and drove 400 miles home. Jake, my wife wants a new something. No more kids, sorry)

Prep is what wins races. Half the game is played off the field. Engineering, prep, teamwork, patience, perserverance and drive - and the driving. That's what wins.

One thing to say in favor of the E36 - there wasn't one car there. That blows. I think this car should be running in ITS and if guys feel chased out that's not cool. Makes me even more serious about setting one up - it is such a great car to race.

Autotechnic - c'mon I know you're just back from NHIS and drinking a cold one about now. So what's the weeked story?

Z3_GoCar

10-31-2005, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by benspeed@Oct 30 2005, 08:22 PM

Autotechnic - c'mon I know you're just back from NHIS and drinking a cold one about now. So what's the weeked story?

64064

Hey Ben, I heard from the Z3 board there was a fatal at NHIS in the BMWCCA event. A guy went into the wall at 100mph between NASCAR turns 1 and 2. He was semi consious being pulled from the car but was DOA. I'm sure that any racers from the North East will soon learn more details. This racers name escapes me at the moment; however, I pray for the well being of his family.

James

lateapex911

10-31-2005, 04:01 AM

Yes, sadly there was a fatality...

here's a link.

I know this board will handle this properly.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=6536 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6536)

snowmann

10-31-2005, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 31 2005, 12:36 AM
All we can control right now is what is newly classified, re-classified or to use PCA's to try and return some class equity if there is an glaring error...IE: weight or an RP.

If you are talking about the E30 318is - how does ITA sound? :)

AB

64046

I think that makes more sense then ITS dont you? I mean obviously ITA cars aren't far off of the ITS crowd but still that sucker is just an under-dog... And doesnt the z3 even run ITA? all other cars with this very same motor run ITA... this car somehow got thrown in ITS? doesnt make much sense... We race Midwest Council as well, There are a few ITA guys that will follow, if not lead the top ITS guys at BH farms...

Right now we are just having fun getting out there and running

Andy Bettencourt

10-31-2005, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by snowmann@Oct 31 2005, 10:59 PM
I think that makes more sense then ITS dont you? I mean obviously ITA cars aren't far off of the ITS crowd but still that sucker is just an under-dog... And doesnt the z3 even run ITA? all other cars with this very same motor run ITA... this car somehow got thrown in ITS? doesnt make much sense... We race Midwest Council as well, There are a few ITA guys that will follow, if not lead the top ITS guys at BH farms...

Right now we are just having fun getting out there and running

64150

IIRC, the 318is (1991) was recommended for a change to ITA. Darin can verify but if not, a letter would get the process rolling. Seems like a no-brainer. Betting it would be around SE-R/NX2000 weight.

AB

Banzai240

10-31-2005, 11:28 PM

snowmann

11-01-2005, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 1 2005, 03:28 AM
I'm pretty sure that we moved this one, at a weight similiar to the Z3... I'll see if I can find the exact date of the recommendation... NO one on the ITAC felt that this car belongs in ITS, if I recall correctly... (a thing that's a bit iffy these days! :rolleyes: )

64155

Not to sound too bias'ed but the newer motors have a higher hp... they call it the m44... (whats in the 1.9 z3) so really seeing as how the z3 shares e30 chassis components id almost assume that the e30 should weigh as it does in ITS...2600

Z3_GoCar

11-01-2005, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by snowmann@Oct 31 2005, 09:03 PM
Not to sound too bias'ed but the newer motors have a higher hp... they call it the m44... (whats in the 1.9 z3) so really seeing as how the z3 shares e30 chassis components id almost assume that the e30 should weigh as it does in ITS...2600

64158

I think all the people racing the M44 would agree that it doesn't have the potential that the earlier engines had. Try tuning the two piece intake manifold that's not allowed to be matched in the middle, seems like and instant power drain right there. Also from experience I can tell you it doesn't like WOT below 4k rpm but will bog down when excess throttle is applied. I think Noam said it best when switching from his Honda Civic, that he wasn't used to the lack of power from the M44. Or you could be in the e-36 318i which is at 2840 lbs or TEN pounds less that the ITS e-36 325 :blink:

James

Banzai240

11-01-2005, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 1 2005, 03:03 AM
IIRC, the 318is (1991) was recommended for a change to ITA. Darin can verify but if not, a letter would get the process rolling. Seems like a no-brainer. Betting it would be around SE-R/NX2000 weight.

AB

64153

Even though I haven't been able to find it in my notes (I was looking in 2005, and apparently it's in 2004...), I checked with SCCA Tech and here is the response:

Darin,
This was in the 2004 recommended items:

Item 1. Based on recommendations from the IT Advisory Committee, the Club Racing Board is recommending that the 1990-91 BMW 318i/is be reclassified from ITS to ITA.

Regards,

John

I'll go back and look to see exactly when this was recommended, and what the recommended weight was... I think it should show up in the 2006 ITCS...

Banzai240

11-01-2005, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 1 2005, 05:14 PM
I'll go back and look to see exactly when this was recommended, and what the recommended weight was... I think it should show up in the 2006 ITCS...

64187

OK, I just received a note from John concerning this. The 318i/is Twin-Cam 90-91 was recommended for reclassification from ITS to ITA at it's ITS weight of 2600lbs... That happened to be the correct weight, based on the IT classification process...

Hope this helps! (in more ways than one! ;) )

Should be competitive now!

snowmann

11-01-2005, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 1 2005, 06:48 PM
OK, I just received a note from John concerning this. The 318i/is Twin-Cam 90-91 was recommended for reclassification from ITS to ITA at it's ITS weight of 2600lbs... That happened to be the correct weight, based on the IT classification process...

Hope this helps! (in more ways than one! ;) )

Should be competitive now!

64195

Is this going to be in affect in 06? Would like to get m. council in on this as well

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by dj10@Oct 30 2005, 06:19 PM
The people that are using illegal cam timing, valve springs and bores, or what ever. Are these the cars that the ITAC or CRB are getting their numbers from? Some people will interpret to suite themselves knowing they are over the border line of being legal. Are these the people that will beat you?

I notice that almost all the posts in this thread are from people on the east coast -- not even just east of the Rockies; east of the Mississippi. So I'm worried that they are.

My car dynos at the rear wheels for far less than the 225 number being thrown around. I'm not even sure my street E36 M3 makes that much power at the rear wheels! I can't imagine getting the car up to that level of performance -- not for club racing.

I'm at 2900 pounds with my fat ass and a half tank. If, in addition to the restrictor plate that suddenly appeared at the beginning of this season, I have to get the car up over 3000, I'm not even sure how I'd do it. Get a stock gas tank and fill it with lead?

My times are getting better. I had great racing this year; tenths of seconds between me and the 240 Z cars at PIR. The Integra whooped my butt at Mission.

I can't help but thinking that a bunch of cheaters back east are making the car look better than it is and causing other drivers to challenge the rule book instead of protesting the car itself.

I, for one, don't have "the data" that everyone thinks is so obvious. To me, that information would need to include what protests and inspections were done on the cars that are so obviously overdog. As far as the data I know about -- my own races, with other E36es, with Integras and 240Z's -- I can't imagine putting the extra weight into the car.

Why not take weight out of the other cars?

There should be little doubt that the E36 is a great car. It's being compared to cars that are actually 15 years older than it is, or using technology that's even older. ITS is not a vintage class -- it's for modern sports cars.

Maybe some of the rules should be updated to allow the more antiquated cars a better shot at development to meet current technology. For example, if I can reprogram my ECU -- what does a 240Z driver do?

Bill Miller

11-02-2005, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 1 2005, 02:48 PM
OK, I just received a note from John concerning this. The 318i/is Twin-Cam 90-91 was recommended for reclassification from ITS to ITA at it's ITS weight of 2600lbs... That happened to be the correct weight, based on the IT classification process...

Hope this helps! (in more ways than one! ;) )

Should be competitive now!

64195

Darin,

I just looked at an '02 GCR (just happened to be the one on the desk), and it's got the '92-'94 318 (E36) DOHC listed in ITA, at a weight of 2840#. It didn't say "318is", but all the specs look the same. Oddly enough, there were no valve sizes given for the ITS version or the ITA version. I'm not a BMW guy, so I don't know there is a difference between the '90-'91 cars, that are slated to move to ITA, and the '92-'94 cars. If the '92-'94 car is one of the ones that's part of the 'mass PCA adjustment', I'll just be quiet, and go back to reading my VW Bentley manual. :P

Mike,

The fact that some of those top E36 cars have survived ARRA post-race tech, notwithstanding, you might want to re-think your above comments. You are, in pretty much so many words, calling a LOT of folks cheaters. That's a pretty serious allegation, and something that shouldn't just be casually thrown around. I have no idea what the prep level of your car is, or who built it, but unless it's a 10/10ths effort, it's pretty disingenuous to hint that the top guys are cheating. And if you think that restrictor plate 'suddenly appeared' this year, you haven't been following this site much.

As far as how to get the weight up, you just add lead. The 100# max ballast rule has been lifted.

Geo

11-02-2005, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 2 2005, 06:35 AM
Darin,

I just looked at an '02 GCR (just happened to be the one on the desk), and it's got the '92-'94 318 (E36) DOHC listed in ITA, at a weight of 2840#. It didn't say "318is", but all the specs look the same. Oddly enough, there were no valve sizes given for the ITS version or the ITA version. I'm not a BMW guy, so I don't know there is a difference between the '90-'91 cars, that are slated to move to ITA, and the '92-'94 cars. If the '92-'94 car is one of the ones that's part of the 'mass PCA adjustment', I'll just be quiet, and go back to reading my VW Bentley manual. :P

64264

Bill, the 90-91 318i is an E30. The 92-94 318i is the little E36 that looks like it was rear ended by a cement mixer (no trunk).

Andy Bettencourt

11-02-2005, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 2 2005, 08:02 AM
Bill, the 90-91 318i is an E30. The 92-94 318i is the little E36 that looks like it was rear ended by a cement mixer (no trunk).

64268

The hatchback was the 318ti of E36 vintage. The 318is that we are talking about as Geo said, is the E30 version. The E36 318i is a 4-door 4 cyl.

AB

Andy Bettencourt

11-02-2005, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 05:16 AM
I notice that almost all the posts in this thread are from people on the east coast -- not even just east of the Rockies; east of the Mississippi. So I'm worried that they are.

My car dynos at the rear wheels for far less than the 225 number being thrown around. I'm not even sure my street E36 M3 makes that much power at the rear wheels! I can't imagine getting the car up to that level of performance -- not for club racing.

I'm at 2900 pounds with my fat ass and a half tank. If, in addition to the restrictor plate that suddenly appeared at the beginning of this season, I have to get the car up over 3000, I'm not even sure how I'd do it. Get a stock gas tank and fill it with lead?

My times are getting better. I had great racing this year; tenths of seconds between me and the 240 Z cars at PIR. The Integra whooped my butt at Mission.

I can't help but thinking that a bunch of cheaters back east are making the car look better than it is and causing other drivers to challenge the rule book instead of protesting the car itself.

I, for one, don't have "the data" that everyone thinks is so obvious. To me, that information would need to include what protests and inspections were done on the cars that are so obviously overdog. As far as the data I know about -- my own races, with other E36es, with Integras and 240Z's -- I can't imagine putting the extra weight into the car.

Why not take weight out of the other cars?

There should be little doubt that the E36 is a great car. It's being compared to cars that are actually 15 years older than it is, or using technology that's even older. ITS is not a vintage class -- it's for modern sports cars.

Maybe some of the rules should be updated to allow the more antiquated cars a better shot at development to meet current technology. For example, if I can reprogram my ECU -- what does a 240Z driver do?

64259

Don't worry about the 225hp that gets mentioned but never backed up. We see high numbers and we see low numbers. 195-210 are the core. A standard IT-prep improvement of 25% (which this car is VERY capable of - 236 CRANK HP) makes this car a 3050-3100lb car in ITS. Remember - this is WITHOUT the restrictor.

The math is simple, there is no witch hunt. This car is at the front of the pack and has never been run through the process. It is not unique in the fact it needs weight...ITA has some issues as well, which we hope to address. All we want is for all the cars to be based on the same process so we can defend the structure/classifications.

AB

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 2 2005, 11:35 AM
Mike,

The fact that some of those top E36 cars have survived ARRA post-race tech, notwithstanding, you might want to re-think your above comments. You are, in pretty much so many words, calling a LOT of folks cheaters. That's a pretty serious allegation, and something that shouldn't just be casually thrown around. I have no idea what the prep level of your car is, or who built it, but unless it's a 10/10ths effort, it's pretty disingenuous to hint that the top guys are cheating. And if you think that restrictor plate 'suddenly appeared' this year, you haven't been following this site much.

As far as how to get the weight up, you just add lead. The 100# max ballast rule has been lifted.

64264

Hi, Bill.

What's ARRA? American Road Racing Association? Another back-east local org, aren't they? Why is their tech inspection relevant to a car's legality for SCCA ITS competition?

I would have hoped you had read my note as carefully as I had written it. I'm not calling a lot of folks cheaters; I'm suggesting that a few folks are runining outside the rules, knowing it or not, and upsetting the balance for the rest of us.

That is, I wonder if this problem is local to several of the regions back-east regions. Out here, there's no issue. I went back two years and I can't find any lap times for for a BMW in an SCCA ITS race in the Oregon region. I found a few BMW times for the Pacific Northwest region, but that car was unopposed in the races I found.

So as I mentioned, I'm not really sure the "data is obvious". If it's obvious, let's trot it out into the bright sunshine and see if it survives a peer review. Meanwhile, this comes off as ranting buy guys who haven't posted times in a while, people who are protecting business interests, and those who can't stand technological change.

To put a finer point on it, repeating "it's obvious!!1!" isn't helpful. Providing some discussion points and hard data would be.

Indeed, I don't follow this forum for rule changes; I read about them in the FastTrack, which made no mention of considering a restrictor plate for the E36 until it was announced as required in the January, 2005 issue. Prior to that, they'd solicited input once and discussed only weight changes. To me, that's sudden: I don't know whe I would have been able to offer input or response to the competition board.

That brings up one of my questions, though; who are the "we" and "us" that Darin keeps referring to? Am I really to trust this stale old website for official news about ITS rules in SCCA?

It's good to hear the ballast restriction has been lifted -- I guess it had to be done, if these adjustments really have to be made. The difference for me is 150 pounds; I'm sure it's more for other cars and drivers. If my calculations are right, 150 pounds of lead at a density of 11.3437 g/cm^3 has a volume of about 6 liters, or just less than a gallon and a half.

Even if I were to stipulate that the E36 is an overdog, I think undermining the car is the wrong idea. It seems to me that the older and less advanced cars in the class should be retired to a lesser class where they're more competitive. Any other proposal makes me wonder about the longevity of the solution. The problem is that the SCCA hasn't ever made good competition equality adjustments in these classes; it wasn't a part of the class charter until recently. The problem won't be fixed by overloading one of the more modern cars in the class.

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 12:19 PM
Don't worry about the 225hp that gets mentioned but never backed up. We see high numbers and we see low numbers. 195-210 are the core. A standard IT-prep improvement of 25% (which this car is VERY capable of - 236 CRANK HP) makes this car a 3050-3100lb car in ITS. Remember - this is WITHOUT the restrictor.

Hi, Andy.

Who is the "we" you're referring to?

I'm about ten percent shy of that "core number" at the wheels, what with my junkyard motor and club-racing budget. Where can I read more about this "standard IT-prep" you're talking about?

Thanks for your help!

Knestis

11-02-2005, 01:37 PM

The rules have to be written such that parity results among makes/models built to the hilt - to the maximum allowed by the rules. I totally understand your philosophy - and share it, actually - but there's no way that weight specs can be established based on junkyard motors. I ran one of those for the last two years and accepted that I was not going to be allowed up front.

K

EDIT - ARRA was, I think, a typo of ARRC (American Road Racing Championships), arguably the premier gathering of IT cars in the country. It's kind of significant because they tear down the podium finishers even if there isn't a protest.

benspeed

11-02-2005, 01:46 PM

Be kind to Mike - he's new on the site and doesn't have the multi-year history of following this site. When I first started posting here I was promptly trashed.

Mike - this site is really the best resource for all things related to IT racing. It's kept pretty current IMHO.

Long has this E36 debate raged and many of the gentlemen who advise the club in an official capacity provide info and take abuse on this site - be kind to those guys since they volunteer and take a reasonable amount of crap (although things have been WAY to civil lately) :o These guys are seeking fairness in classification.

My concern is that many E36 drivers are getting chased off because of the restrictions placed on the car. I like racing with a bunch of good cars, but not with a total overdog. The performance potential of the E36 IMHO is significantly higher than that of the other cars in the class and the advisory committee is taking measures to create a methodology to properly class cars taking into account the performance tier of each vehicle. This is based on guys who are building very high quality cars. Mike - guys in the east and the south will drop $10K on a motor as part of winning a championship. But even other E36 front runners have been competitive with junkyard engines and restrictor plates.

The level of ITS competition is very high in our region (NE) and in the south. Several folks who recently returned after racing sebaticals have commented that it's approached semi-pro levels of investment and talent in the last few years. That being the case the folks are taking steps to make sure that inherent performance advantages don't carry the day. And if that means some adjustments to the RX7 then those drivers will have to take it and not be whiners.

Banzai240

11-02-2005, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 05:17 PM
Hi, Andy.

Who is the "we" you're referring to?

I'm about ten percent shy of that "core number" at the wheels, what with my junkyard motor and club-racing budget. Where can I read more about this "standard IT-prep" you're talking about?

Thanks for your help!

64312

Mike,
If I may... I think the "we" that is getting referred to is the Improved Touring Advisory Committee... or ITAC...

Since you are here in my region (NW and Oregon), you can feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions about what's going on... send me an e-mail if you are interested and I'll give you the contact info from there...

As for the output numbers for the BMW... to summarize what's been hased out here... The ITAC estimates the output for the E36 at around 235 to 240hp at the flywheel, or about 195-200 at the wheels... This is backed up with multiple dyno sheets sent to the CRB by E36 drivers, one that shows 195whp and the other that shows 205 whp (might have been 210... I'll have to go back and look)... There have been rumors that more is achievable, but there have also been rumors that these are using illegal cams, etc...

Either way, the IT classification process pretty much predicts the output that is validated on the dyno sheets...

NOW, knowing that you can't always trust dyno sheets, we still have multiple sources that indicate that they are making "a little less" than the 225 whp or so that is mentioned above, plus the actual data we have in the form of the dyno sheets mentioned, so we feel we have a pretty good handle on where this car is from a performance potential standpoint... Please note, that I made no mention of on-track performance, or results in any way... They are a secondary consideration... The primary focus is to get cars classified based on their specifications and performance potential... not based on how Joe-Blow did with model X at such-and-such a track... Too many variables in that to get an accurate assessment...

So, when we talk about making adjustments to the E36, or it needing adjustments, etc... this is the standpoint and basis from which we (the ITAC) are coming...

Look at the E46 (172hp stock) and other recently classified cars, and you'll see the trend... The push now is to get the existing classifications in line with this trend, which should give IT a baseline to build from in the future, and should prevent additional classifications from being "overdogs" or the new "flavor of the month" cars...

I need to get back to work but I hope this gives you and everyone else here paying attention a little more insight into this particuar issue... perhaps even to other classification questions as well...

Again, e-mail me if you'd like to talk in person: [email protected] and I'll send you my contact info...

Otherwise, keep asking and participating and we'll (Those ITAC members that are here...) will continue to try to keep you all informed...

Sincerly,

Andy Bettencourt

11-02-2005, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 01:17 PM
Hi, Andy.

Who is the "we" you're referring to?

I'm about ten percent shy of that "core number" at the wheels, what with my junkyard motor and club-racing budget. Where can I read more about this "standard IT-prep" you're talking about?

Thanks for your help!

64312

Darin said it above, the ITAC.

As far as "standard IT-prep"...check the ITCS under "Authorized Modifications"...

I can't state this enough...with a 25% increase over stock with IT-Prep (which is easily attainable in these cars - backed up by info provided by BMW owners), the car needs to weigh around 3100-3150 to be classed using the same parameters as the rest of the class. Fair? I don't see how anyone could think it wasn't. The same process, the same standards...

BTW: congrats on being within 10% of the number with little-to-no prep. :119:

BMWE46ITS

11-02-2005, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240+Nov 2 2005, 02:22 PM-->
As for the output numbers for the BMW... to summarize what's been hased out here... The ITAC estimates the output for the E36 at around 235 to 240hp at the flywheel, or about 195-200 at the wheels... This is backed up with multiple dyno sheets sent to the CRB by E36 drivers, one that shows 195whp and the other that shows 205 whp (might have been 210... I'll have to go back and look)... There have been rumors that more is achievable, but there have also been rumors that these are using illegal cams, etc...

64322
[/b]
Darin if you are going to throw out numbers PLEASE tell us what type of Dyno these #s are on.

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 02:22 PM
Look at the E46 (172hp stock) and other recently classified cars, and you'll see the trend... The push now is to get the existing classifications in line with this trend, which should give IT a baseline to build from in the future, and should prevent additional classifications from being "overdogs" or the new "flavor of the month" cars...

64322

1999 E-46 323i stock HP is 170 not 172 please make a note.

Andy Bettencourt

11-02-2005, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Nov 2 2005, 04:32 PM
Darin if you are going to throw out numbers PLEASE tell us what type of Dyno these #s are on.
1999 E-46 323i stock HP is 170 not 172 please make a note.

64344

Hell hath no fury like a BMW driver scorned...

Banzai240

11-02-2005, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Nov 2 2005, 08:32 PM
Darin if you are going to throw out numbers PLEASE tell us what type of Dyno these #s are on.
1999 E-46 323i stock HP is 170 not 172 please make a note.

64344

OK, 170hp is noted...

As for Dynos... I'll have to go look for the other sheet at home, but I've posted this one previously, with the permission of the owner of the car in question (don't know the dyno type):

E-Mail me if you still need to see the dyno results... I'll send you a copy... Minus Mr. Shafer's address and phone number! ;)

Banzai240

11-02-2005, 04:54 PM

While I'm still here at work, I'll add that we have another E36 competitor who wrote in recently and says that his car "has a professionally built Sunbelt motor and has in the low 190s (whp w/ restrictor)"... (IT Letter 05-066)

Just one more data point to work from... "Low 190s" in whp terms is what the process predicts, and what at least two data points seems to indicate...

We have additional info that 205-210whp is being achieved, but we are not using that for calculations since it's not "officially" submitted to the CRB... The numbers we have were officially submitted to the CRB, so we feel more comforatable using them as data points... It's harder for the other BMW drivers to complain that we are "making this stuff up..." :bash_1_:

zracer22

11-02-2005, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by charrbq@Oct 24 2005, 04:42 PM
I'm sure NASA like to hear of such things. It gives them another class...BMW challenge?

63363

Actually, it's called GTS Challenge and we've just completed our 3rd season. Come and race with us, we'll be glad to have you.

BMWE46ITS

11-02-2005, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 04:54 PM
While I'm still here at work, I'll add that we have another E36 competitor who wrote in recently and says that his car "has a professionally built Sunbelt motor and has in the low 190s (whp w/ restrictor)"... (IT Letter 05-066)

64351

Darin, all this information is a start but we need to know a lot of other information.

What was the weather and humidity that day?
What gear was the car being run in on this dyno pull?
16 or 15 inch wheels?
45 or 50 series tires?
How accurate is this Dyno?
What brand of Dyno?

Does the ITAC consider this???? All these factors can affect correct #s

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Nov 2 2005, 07:00 PM-->
Darin said it above, the ITAC.
[/b]And who are they? Who appointed them? From what I've read here so far, they come off like a bunch of vigilantes. What's their charter? How do I join? How many BMW drivers are in the ITAC?

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 07:00 PM
As far as "standard IT-prep"...check the ITCS under "Authorized Modifications"...

BTW: congrats on being within 10% of the number with little-to-no prep. :119:
I think you might have misunderstood; I'm 10% under the stock numbers at the rear wheel, not 10% under the 225 horsepower number you've mentioned.

What's the plan for when the 924S guys start complaining, or the 1.8L Miata guys get angry? Bring the E36 to 3450 or so?

I don't think there's much in the way of horsepower improvements that aren't in the car. I'm running Conforti software (AFAIK) and not Bimmerworld software. The throttle body water line is still there, as I haven't found a good plug for the heater line. The evap canister and its plumbing are still there, but I can't imagine this costs power.

I had always thought headers weren't legal in ITS. Maybe I should look into that, though I don't think I have an exhaust flow problem.

And my engine wasn't rebuilt; is this 225 horsepower car running a 040-over motor?

After putting a great suspension on the car, all the improvements have come from my development as a driver. I'd hate to have to take a giant step backwards with the extra 200 pounds in the passenger footwell -- assuming I could even find a way to get that much weight in there.

Andy Bettencourt

11-02-2005, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Nov 2 2005, 05:17 PM
Darin, all this information is a start but we need to know a lot of other information.

What was the weather and humidity that day?
What gear was the car being run in on this dyno pull?
16 or 15 inch wheels?
45 or 50 series tires?
How accurate is this Dyno?
What brand of Dyno?

Does the ITAC consider this???? All these factors can affect correct #s

64360

Jeff,

Let's cut through the crap. Have you been ignoring some of the other e-mails?

There is a process. For an engine of this design, we use a 25% increase over stock crank hp to estimate crank hp in IT-prep. We use that number, combine it with a target class performance factor, then add for intangibles - should there be any. That is how we set weight. It's been documented here before. Simple stuff.

Now, as far as the dyno sheets go, they are used as SUPPORTING information, not the be-all, end-all. In this case, every piece of data we have received from BMW owners (presumably wanting to refute claims on boards of 225+ whp) SUPPORTS the 25% factor - IN EVERY CASE. This is great info, it validates our proccess and historical info, which one would think is good for the members.

The issue at hand is that at those power levels, the car is way underweight. All we want to do is get it through the process so it can be on the same playing field as the reast of the cars in the class. It is not unique in this regard. It may be the only car in ITS that sticks out, but there are some in ITA that do as well.

It's about repeatablility, consistancy and fairness.

What does the nit-picking on tire-aspect ratio prove?

Pllllease...some non-BMW, non-ITAC members weigh in here. Are we off base? Are we 'targeting' a car unfairly? The negatives all come from people protecting their own turf, but everyone else is quiet.

Help us help you.

AB

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by benspeed@Nov 2 2005, 05:46 PM
Mike - this site is really the best resource for all things related to IT racing. It's kept pretty current IMHO.

I can't agree. There's no race results, despite a couple of links to them. The pages mention "results from 2002". The lap records page doesn't look current; there's plenty of missing data, and a preponderance of east-coast tracks. No data from Portland at all? Pacific Raceways isn't even listed? Broken links abound.

The point is that it's hard for me to take sersiously what's posted here. Why would I assume anyone here is more authorotative than any other loudmouth on some racing forum?

Originally posted by benspeed+Nov 2 2005, 05:46 PM-->
These guys are seeking fairness in classification. [/b]Which is fine. But I think they're headed for overcompenstation. And the process is far too opaque for my linking.

<!--QuoteBegin-benspeed@Nov 2 2005, 05:46 PM
My concern is that many E36 drivers are getting chased off because of the restrictions placed on the car. I like racing with a bunch of good cars, but not with a total overdog. The performance potential of the E36 IMHO is significantly higher than that of the other cars in the class and the advisory committee is taking measures to create a methodology to properly class cars taking into account the performance tier of each vehicle. This is based on guys who are building very high quality cars. Mike - guys in the east and the south will drop $10K on a motor as part of winning a championship. But even other E36 front runners have been competitive with junkyard engines and restrictor plates.

Indeed, I'm all for fun racing. If I was walking away from everyone else in my club, then I wouldn't have these questions -- I'd shut up and hope nobody noticed for another season. As it stands, I can barely keep up with the 240Zs, and the Integras are wildly faster at the shorter tracks. And in the rain? P'shaw!

The rules change with little visible discussion, and no transparancy. Where's all this "data" and "math" that's so obvious? If there's a committee dedicated to making the decision, I'd expect them to solicit comment publicly, provide reports, host talks, and so on. Maybe I've missed it -- but where is all that? It's certainly not on these forums, in this rant-fest, is it?

Dropping ten grand on a motor isn't "fun racing" in this regional class, for club racing. And that's why I think some over-prepared cars are upsetting the balance in certain regions, and an attempt to solve that problem nationally is ill-advised.

I thought it was absurd to introduce competition balancing to ITS in the first place; there are other balanced classes where its appropriate -- if someone feels they're not getting a fair shake, they should investigate those classes.

Bill Miller

11-02-2005, 05:51 PM

I'm about ten percent shy of that "core number" at the wheels

Mike, that's your quote, in response to what Andy state was the core range of values, for E36 325 WHP.

I had always thought headers weren't legal in ITS. Maybe I should look into that, though I don't think I have an exhaust flow problem.

I hate to sound harsh, but that comment makes it sound like you really have no idea what you're doing. Headers have been legal in IT (all classes) for as long as I can remember. You would probably be well served by a closer reading of the ITCS.

As far as the restrictor on the E36 being put out for member input, it didn't need to be. With the passage of the PCA clause, the CRB was given the power to make adjustments to IT cars. There is no need to put it out for member input, and in fact, probably should not. There should be as little subjective influence on the spec weight of a car as possible.

And Kirk was right, ARRA was a typo for ARRC.

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 09:47 PM
There is a process. For an engine of this design, we use a 25% increase over stock crank hp to estimate crank hp in IT-prep. We use that number, combine it with a target class performance factor, then add for intangibles - should there be any. That is how we set weight. It's been documented here before. Simple stuff.

Andy, please try not to sound so condescending. While it might be simple, there's plenty of people around -- like me -- who don't know it already.

What's the "class performance factor"? Don't you think 25% is generous? Who decides what "intangibles" are added, and how much? Documented where?

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Nov 2 2005, 09:47 PM-->
Now, as far as the dyno sheets go, they are used as SUPPORTING information, not the be-all, end-all. In this case, every piece of data we have received from BMW owners (presumably wanting to refute claims on boards of 225+ whp) SUPPORTS the 25% factor - IN EVERY CASE. This is great info, it validates our proccess and historical info, which one would think is good for the members.
[/b]

Please let me know where I can send my dyno sheets so that you can use balanced data as your input. I can get my friends together and have them send in sheets, too. It seems very amazing to me that all the cars you've dynoed are running over 230 horspower (189 times 1.25 is 231.25).

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 09:47 PM
Pllllease...some non-BMW, non-ITAC members weigh in here. Are we off base? Are we 'targeting' a car unfairly? The negatives all come from people protecting their own turf, but everyone else is quiet.
Does your business, sell any BMW parts?

Andy Bettencourt

11-02-2005, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 05:40 PM
And who are they? Who appointed them? From what I've read here so far, they come off like a bunch of vigilantes. What's their charter? How do I join? How many BMW drivers are in the ITAC?

I think you might have misunderstood; I'm 10% under the stock numbers at the rear wheel, not 10% under the 225 horsepower number you've mentioned.

What's the plan for when the 924S guys start complaining, or the 1.8L Miata guys get angry? Bring the E36 to 3450 or so?

I don't think there's much in the way of horsepower improvements that aren't in the car. I'm running Conforti software (AFAIK) and not Bimmerworld software. The throttle body water line is still there, as I haven't found a good plug for the heater line. The evap canister and its plumbing are still there, but I can't imagine this costs power.

I had always thought headers weren't legal in ITS. Maybe I should look into that, though I don't think I have an exhaust flow problem.

And my engine wasn't rebuilt; is this 225 horsepower car running a 040-over motor?

After putting a great suspension on the car, all the improvements have come from my development as a driver. I'd hate to have to take a giant step backwards with the extra 200 pounds in the passenger footwell -- assuming I could even find a way to get that much weight in there.

64368

Who are we?

http://scca.com/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=01143...30&x=080|070&~= (http://scca.com/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=01143E-9E52030&x=080|070&~=)

So you are running 170whp? (189*.90) With JUST A CHIP??? Congrats again, you are right in the zone of a built RX-7. :bash_1_: Throw out the 225whp number. It isn't a factor in what we use for data. Just because someone gave it to use, doesn't mean it is based in fact. Re-read my post above on what numbers we are using...the same process as EVERY OTHER CAR.

This isn't about the MANY complaints we have received already, it's about a PROCESS - one that is applied to everyone. Fairly.

You thought headers were illegal in IT...goodness Mike, you are killing yourself here. How can you complain about a classification, potential changes or a process when you don't have the most basic knowledge of the rules in your own class? I ask that of you will all due respect. Seriously.

Some would argue that the penalty of that 200 pounds would be just enough to equalize an unlevel playing field. If you find that hard to swallow, I am sorry.

AB

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240+Nov 2 2005, 06:22 PM-->
Since you are here in my region (NW and Oregon), you can feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions about what's going on... send me an e-mail if you are interested and I'll give you the contact info from there...
[/b]

Thanks for the offer, Darin. My contact information is in my profile (or, at least, you're only a couple of clicks away from my contact information once you visit the web site in my profile). Let me know if you find that the email address isn't working.

I'm not sure why you want to take the conversation private, though. I think I have already posted all of the questions I would initially ask you here.

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 06:22 PM
The ITAC estimates the output for the E36 at around 235 to 240hp at the flywheel, or about 195-200 at the wheels... This is backed up with multiple dyno sheets sent to the CRB by E36 drivers, one that shows 195whp and the other that shows 205 whp (might have been 210... I'll have to go back and look)... There have been rumors that more is achievable, but there have also been rumors that these are using illegal cams, etc...

I'm a little confused. You mention two dyno sheets -- is that "multiple"? How do I submit my own dyno data?

Andy Bettencourt

11-02-2005, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 05:56 PM
Andy, please try not to sound so condescending. While it might be simple, there's plenty of people around -- like me -- who don't know it already.

What's the "class performance factor"? Don't you think 25% is generous? Who decides what "intangibles" are added, and how much? Documented where?
Please let me know where I can send my dyno sheets so that you can use balanced data as your input. I can get my friends together and have them send in sheets, too. It seems very amazing to me that all the cars you've dynoed are running over 230 horspower (189 times 1.25 is 231.25).
Does your business, sell any BMW parts?

64376

Sorry if it comes off that way. It would seem that you haven't read the entire thread and I am in need of repetition...it gets frustrating.

The ITAC votes on these 'intangibles', bounces them around, debates them and applies them. Some of them are (not related to any specific car): Aero, superior brakes, chassis layout, superior transmission ratios, etc...as compared to cars in its class.

Not to sound harsh, but keep your dyno sheets until you have built your motor to the limit of the rules. We have to class cars based on potential, not on what a under - or marginally - or even 'close to the max' motors would put out.

My business sells no BMW parts, but it sounds like you needs some...

Mike, lets not clog up the forum bickering. I respectfully suggest you do some more learning before more debate.

AB

Banzai240

11-02-2005, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 10:01 PM
I'm not sure why you want to take the conversation private, though. I think I have already posted all of the questions I would initially ask you here.

Please don't misinterpret... I only offered because I can get the point across better in person than in type... I have also said everything I would say in person here... There is nothing to hide. I think we've pretty much laid it out on the line here... I DO get tired of typing from time to time... ;)

I'm a little confused. You mention two dyno sheets -- is that "multiple"? How do I submit my own dyno data?

64379

If you'd like to submit your own dyno data, you are welcome to... Send it to Jeremy or John at SCCA Tech and to the CRB... [email protected] is the e-mail I believe. We would gladly accept another data point. Be sure, however, to qualify it by giving a detailed description of the level of prep, engine builder, etc., so we have a context to go by... Fully prepped means just that...

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Nov 2 2005, 09:59 PM-->
Who are we?

http://scca.com/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=01143...30&x=080|070&~= (http://scca.com/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=01143E-9E52030&x=080|070&~=)
[/b] Thanks for the link, that's a start. Where do I find the rest of the information?

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 09:59 PM
So you are running 170whp? (189*.90) With JUST A CHIP??? Nope. A free-flow exhaust without a cat. No headers, tho. Kormann LSD. And a Conforti intake kit. No A/C, power steering pump has a reduced pulley, and I think the water pump has one too. No engine fan.

A rounding error less than 170, yep. I'd have to go grab the sheets, but I think I'm exactly at 168 or so.

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 09:59 PM
Throw out the 225whp number. It isn't a factor in what we use for data. Just because someone gave it to use, doesn't mean it is based in fact. Re-read my post above on what numbers we are using...the same process as EVERY OTHER CAR.

What's with the ALL CAPS, Andy? I know this issue has a long history, particularly on this flame board, but I've respectfully come with my honest questions and I've stated them plainly. I expect to be treated like a gentleman in return -- particularly by someone in your position.

The same process, modulo all the "intangibles" and "performance factor". Your other post doesn't say these are fixed, and doesn't explain how they're determined or derived.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 09:59 PM
You thought headers were illegal in IT...goodness Mike, you are killing yourself here. How can you complain about a classification, potential changes or a process when you don't have the most basic knowledge of the rules in your own class? I ask that of you will all due respect. Seriously. Well, it's pretty simple, Andy. Perhaps you don't understand it because you're too far out of touch with the people you're supposed to be helping and leading. With all due respect, seriously.

Headers are expensive. I'm a club racer; if I win all the races I go to, I get a pile of plaques and a trophy. I've only been racing for four or five years, and I'm easing into it. Between the expense and the lack of a perceived need, I never looked into 'em.

Where I'm racing, I'm quite happy. The last five or six races this year, all the ITS cars (except for people who broke, or had the wrong tyres, or whatever) had everyone posting best laps within a second of eachother.

So between the lack of a perceived need and a measured, learn-as-I-go approach, I haven't looked into every corner of the rule book. What you're certain is "typical" is actually "not yet, if ever" for me. And that goes back to my idea that the proposed adjustments are overreaction.

All these power numbers are from cars that are incredibly well-prepped. Why not make racing affordable and approachable for everyone in the class? If a car doesn't have certain enhancements, why wouldn't it get some weight back?

Do you know how to spot the guys who know all the intricacies of the rule book at the track? Besides the ones who are a Steward, anyway? They're the ones who are all excited about every little problem, and not having any fun any more.

Maybe I can overcome the weight penalty with a set of headers -- I guess I'll have to wait until January when the announcement is made to know, huh? It would be great if adding the headers overcame the penalty exactly, so I can continue to have fun racing with my friends.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 09:59 PM
Some would argue that the penalty of that 200 pounds would be just enough to equalize an unlevel playing field. If you find that hard to swallow, I am sorry.Is this really what you mean to say? Because it's a quite telling response: you're stating one side of the argument, taking it as your position and the position of your committee, and then saying that everyone else should suck it up without question. That's not the kind of balanced, sensible explanation I would expect in a public forum from someone on a national advisory board to the Sports Car Club of America. That's not what working on a committee is about.

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240+Nov 2 2005, 10:24 PM-->
Please don't misinterpret... I only offered because I can get the point across better in person than in type... I have also said everything I would say in person here... There is nothing to hide. I think we've pretty much laid it out on the line here... I DO get tired of typing from time to time... ;)
[/b]Then maybe you should try to get in touch with me, as a majority of my questions are going unanswered.

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 10:24 PM
If you'd like to submit your own dyno data, PLEASE DO!! Send it to Jeremy or John at SCCA Tech and to the CRB... [email protected] is the e-mail I believe. We would gladly accept another data point. Be sure, however, to qualify it by giving a detailed description of the level of prep, engine builder, etc., so we have a context to go by... Thanks for the contact info. I'll see if I can get to it this weekend.

Banzai240

11-02-2005, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 10:27 PM
That's not the kind of balanced, sensible explanation I would expect in a public forum from someone on a national advisory board to the Sports Car Club of America. That's not what working on a committee is about.

64385

Mike,

You need to step back and read EVERYTHING here on this topic... You are very obviously missing some important information that has already been discussed at length in various threads on this topic...

This isn't about the BMW... It's about all of IT... we've explained this, laid it out, etc., for many, many months... there is really only a select group who really disagree with what we are trying to do...

Please go read all the info here before you bury yourself further in this muck...

The bottom line concerning your position above is this... we can NOT classify cars based on someones "budget"... we have to consider what a fully developed example is capable of... Not to sound harsh, but yours is NOT that example, base on your description above...

Ron Earp

11-02-2005, 06:34 PM

Mike, you aren't running a header on your car and you don't think you have a flow problem? You are wanting to be competitive in ITS, right? You'll have to do that and a lot more to have a competitive BMW 325 in ITS, that is certain.

I'm new at this too, but you aren't anywhere near the development necessary to run upfront in an ITS BMW so I'm not sure you should be worried too much at the moment about rwhp numbers and weight of the top cars. Right now with wheel hp 10% shy of the stock hp levels (I think I read that in your post) you are going to be hard pressed to be back pack among BMWs and mid-pack with the rest of the ITS field.

R

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 10:11 PM
Sorry if it comes off that way. It would seem that you haven't read the entire thread and I am in need of repetition...it gets frustrating.
Nope, I've read it. There's a lot of proof by desk pounding, which I don't take well to. Ranting that something is "obvious" or "shouldn't need to be repeated" doesn't really prove anything. If you think there's something I've missed that's important, feel free to point me to the specific post. In this forum, each one is numbered and has a link that you can copy into a message.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Nov 2 2005, 10:11 PM-->
The ITAC votes on these 'intangibles', bounces them around, debates them and applies them. Some of them are (not related to any specific car): Aero, superior brakes, chassis layout, superior transmission ratios, etc...as compared to cars in its class.
[/b] And how public is that process? Where are your meeting minutes published?

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 10:11 PM
My business sells no BMW parts, but it sounds like you needs some...What prevents someone on the committee, from poisoning the committee with a personal agenda?

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 10:11 PM
I respectfully suggest you do some more learning before more debate.
I'm here to learn, Andy. I'm asking lots of questions, and have been very careful to sound level headed. If you're not able to answer them, can you refer me to one of your colleagues who can?

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 2 2005, 10:34 PM
Mike, you aren't running a header on your car and you don't think you have a flow problem? You are wanting to be competitive in ITS, right? You'll have to do that and a lot more to have a competitive BMW 325 in ITS, that is certain.
Is it? I finished second in class overall the last two years in a row. I set the lap record at Spokane, only to have it taken away by someone who bettered me by a few thousandths (literally!) later that afternoon.

Just the same, it's entirely possible what you're saying is true. Maybe if one of the more-prepped back east cars came out here, I'd get a whoopin'. I don't think anyone in the paddock would think the guy was running a well-prepared car -- they'd probably just accuse him of cheating.

Within a region, everyone's used to the region and has no way to compare their competitiveness to another region except to go there and race. I don't think that happens much, though it might back east since everything is so close together.

Around here, I run at the front. If I have a good day, I'll win. If I make a mistake, someone will eat my lunch. It's great fun. Very simply, I'm afraid it won't be fun anymore if I have to add 150 or 200 pounds to the car.

I don't feel like a victim because the rules are changing; I feel like a victim because I don't have any insight into how they're changed or feel like I have a say in changing them.

And that's why I wonder if nationally changing the rules is the right solution. If the weight is added, I must run it as well. My competitors who aren't in E36es will not get the weight, and I'll be left to throw money at a problem.

By the way, it just dawned on me about the headers: I run a secondary local production-based class. I thought this class (despite being production) did allow headers, and that ITS didn't. It turns out it's the other way 'round.

dickita15

11-02-2005, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 06:27 PM
I know this issue has a long history, particularly on this flame board, but I've respectfully come with my honest questions and I've stated them plainly. I expect to be treated like a gentleman in return -- particularly by someone in your position.

64385

respectfully with honest questions. I think not. Mike I am sorry but you have come off as a hot head with little knowledge of the facts. sorry guy but you need to take a step back a see a liitle more of the picture. By the way Darin nicely offered to talk to you personelly and you insist he call you. get over yourself.

Joe Harlan

11-02-2005, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 03:55 PM
Is it? I finished second in class overall the last two years in a row. I set the lap record at Spokane, only to have it taken away by someone who bettered me by a few thousandths (literally!) later that afternoon.

Just the same, it's entirely possible what you're saying is true. Maybe if one of the more-prepped back east cars came out here, I'd get a whoopin'. I don't think anyone in the paddock would think the guy was running a well-prepared car -- they'd probably just accuse him of cheating.

Within a region, everyone's used to the region and has no way to compare their competitiveness to another region except to go there and race. I don't think that happens much, though it might back east since everything is so close together.

Around here, I run at the front. If I have a good day, I'll win. If I make a mistake, someone will eat my lunch. It's great fun. Very simply, I'm afraid it won't be fun anymore if I have to add 150 or 200 pounds to the car.

I don't feel like a victim because the rules are changing; I feel like a victim because I don't have any insight into how they're changed or feel like I have a say in changing them.

And that's why I wonder if nationally changing the rules is the right solution. If the weight is added, I must run it as well. My competitors who aren't in E36es will not get the weight, and I'll be left to throw money at a problem.

By the way, it just dawned on me about the headers: I run a secondary local production-based class. I thought this class (despite being production) did allow headers, and that ITS didn't. It turns out it's the other way 'round.

64393

Mike If I recall correctly (which I do) you run ITS in the ICSCC race club. I don't believe your rule book provides a copy of the SCCA rules which your class runs under. I would recommend a copy of the GCR as a way to at least know what's legal and not legal in ITS. The fact that your car is running up front and finished well in the championship agaist some very well prepared and driven Z cars should tell you that if you maxied out your prep to the book you would be way faster than the cars in your class. The fact that you don't even have a header and you are running with some very fast 240z's makes me believe that writing a big check in the tech shed maybe in order here. Please before you scream how badly your getting boned anymore spend a little time and get to know the rules for the class you are running a little better. If your numbers are correct I promise I could get more out of your car.

Joe

P.S. Who's Dyno did you run the car on and who was the engine builder?

Ron Earp

11-02-2005, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 10:55 PM
Just the same, it's entirely possible what you're saying is true. Maybe if one of the more-prepped back east cars came out here, I'd get a whoopin'. I don't think anyone in the paddock would think the guy was running a well-prepared car -- they'd probably just accuse him of cheating.

Now, both might be true. You might get a whoopin, and I think that might be true based on the wheel hp some of the tope flight bmws make, and I bet your boys would tear that joker down - and I'm not sure what would happen there. I assume nothing, but them fellows at CMP don't keep bringing stock BMW cylinder heads and cams to tech for nothing! :blink:

Ron

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan+Nov 2 2005, 11:22 PM-->
I would recommend a copy of the GCR as a way to at least know what's legal and not legal in ITS.[/b]Hi, Joe!

Thanks for the advice. While I've bought the GCR books in the past, I have found it far more convenient (and cheaper!) to just download the rules from the SCCA website.

<!--QuoteBegin-Joe Harlan@Nov 2 2005, 11:22 PM
Please before you scream how badly your getting boned I've not "screamed about getting boned" by any stretch. Indeed, before I do, I'm trying to figure out how these rule changes happen, and what justification there is for them. What's being proposed doesn't seem appropriate to me, sure; but before I raise a stink about it, I'm making an effort to figure out how those numbers come about. I'm not beyond being convinced that they're they right thing to do.

I'd very much like to see the data that's going into this process, as well as good documentation for the process itself. I've asked for that information here.

Otherwise, no matter what the committee does, it will strike all the drivers involved as something that was just thrown over the wall. After all, if we can come to understand how the process works, it'll be a lot easier to accept that the process is working and that the recommendation of the committee is well-reasoned.

Wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 2 2005, 11:22 PM
P.S. Who's Dyno did you run the car on and who was the engine builder?I ran the car up at the dyno shop in Kirkland, in the Totem Lake area. And I just can't think of the name right now. Is it Carb Connection?

The engine was built by BMW. Seriously; it's a junk yard motor. Strictly BMW went through the heads (which they send to a machine shop, also in Kirkland). But that's it.

Knestis

11-02-2005, 08:03 PM

I tried earlier to point out a couple of things to help you (Mike) but I haven't seen any evidence that you took them to heart - or even bothered reading them. The guys from the ITAC, while they post here out of the kindness of their hearts, act in an official capacity for the club so they kind of have to be nice, so I'll try again...

You sound like a selfish, spoiled, man-child - the kind of stereotype on which the BMW logo penis enlargement pump was based.

You want the national rules set for SCCA to be tailored so that you can be competitive with a car that you admit has a junkyard motor, and you run a stock manifold rather than a header so you can run Conference - rather than build to (or even KNOW) the rules that you are complaining about.

You show up and in one day, without even reading all of the posts in the strand that you are peeing all over, decide that people who have been involved in IT for years - for decades, in some cases - don't have the faintest idea of what they are talking about.

You had a lap record at Spokane for a day or so?! I still have a record at the Olympia Airport circuit - both configurations, in fact - and nobody gives a damn.

Congrats, dude.

You now have zero credibility here. You don't even have a right to bitch, so far as I can tell.

Kirk (who moved away from Bellevue and left a teaching job in Lake Washington School District because of people like you)

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by dickita15@Nov 2 2005, 11:22 PM
respectfully with honest questions. I think not. Mike I am sorry but you have come off as a hot head with little knowledge of the facts. sorry guy but you need to take a step back a see a liitle more of the picture. By the way Darin nicely offered to talk to you personelly and you insist he call you. get over yourself.

Er, I just told Darin how he could find my contact information so he could follow through on his offer to get in touch with me. What's wrong with that? If he's more comfortable chatting about it than writing about it, that's fine by me -- I'm all ears either way.

Indeed, I do have little knowledge of the facts. I haven't been racing for very long, and don't run a racing-oriented business. While my friends and competitors have helped me learn a lot over the last few years, I'm still far more of a driver than a wrench.

And so, I'm here asking about the facts: do we really know the legitimacy of the cars that seem to be overpowered? How does the adivsory committee work? Where can I read their work product? How can I participate, even if it's only to provide my data points? How was it determined that this problem isn't a local issue that could be corrected by the stewards, instead of a national issue with a very wide-spread rule change? If the rule change really does have to happen, who determines how it works? How was the restrictor plate size chosen, for instance? Or the exact weights determined? Why wasn't a graduated system put in place, to make competition equality between preparation levels instead of across models? Why adjust the E36 cars weight up instead of adjust other cars down, or give them other compensation? How will cars newer and faster than the E36 rigs be handled -- is just thowing weight and plates at the problem the right answer for the long term, or should there be new classes, or other mechanisms for equalizing the field of entrants? What about cars that aren't still equalized to the E36? Will even more weight be added?

And so on. If you think you can help me learn something, by all means -- please do!

Eagle7

11-02-2005, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 05:40 PM
I think you might have misunderstood; I'm 10% under the stock numbers at the rear wheel, not 10% under the 225 horsepower number you've mentioned.

64368

I ran last year 15% under stock HP. What's your point? Kwicher whinen.

Joe Harlan

11-02-2005, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 05:01 PM
Hi, Joe!

Thanks for the advice. While I've bought the GCR books in the past, I have found it far more convenient (and cheaper!) to just download the rules from the SCCA website.

I've not "screamed about getting boned" by any stretch. Indeed, before I do, I'm trying to figure out how these rule changes happen, and what justification there is for them. What's being proposed doesn't seem appropriate to me, sure; but before I raise a stink about it, I'm making an effort to figure out how those numbers come about. I'm not beyond being convinced that they're they right thing to do.

I'd very much like to see the data that's going into this process, as well as good documentation for the process itself. I've asked for that information here.

Otherwise, no matter what the committee does, it will strike all the drivers involved as something that was just thrown over the wall. After all, if we can come to understand how the process works, it'll be a lot easier to accept that the process is working and that the recommendation of the committee is well-reasoned.

Wouldn't you agree?

I ran the car up at the dyno shop in Kirkland, in the Totem Lake area. And I just can't think of the name right now. Is it Carb Connection?
The engine was built by BMW. Seriously; it's a junk yard motor. Strictly BMW went through the heads (which they send to a machine shop, also in Kirkland). But that's it.
64400

You kidding right? You come here quoting Dyno numbers and you can't name the dyno place.

So if I look inside that used engine and find M3 cams is that gonna explain how you got fast in a less than a stock car? I gotta tell you if your ready to finish first in the ICSCC championship you need to bring the car and a check book and I will get you there with a legal piece.

Now that I found the problem with a certain white and yellow Z-car you race against I would look to be winning anything too soon with a boneyard motor.

Gary L

11-02-2005, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 3 2005, 12:15 AM
Indeed, I do have little knowledge of the facts.
64404

You've got that right! :)

Let me see if I can clear this up for you... here's what the thread is all about:

Once upon a time, the ITS E36 BMW was classified in ITS at the wrong weight. I repeat... the wrong weight. This created an immediate overdog situation, wherein a top-level prep job on subject car would allow it to run and hide from any other car in the class. Simple math, really... the power-to-weight ratio of this car is far better than any of the other competitive cars in the class, at the current classified weight. The ITAC is attempting to correct this situation with this and other cars, not necessarily all in ITS... there are 3 other IT classes involved in this laudable effort to level the IT playing field.

Joe Harlan

11-02-2005, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Gary L@Nov 2 2005, 05:42 PM
You've got that right! :)

Let me see if I can clear this up for you... here's what the thread is all about:

Once upon a time, the ITS E36 BMW was classified in ITS at the wrong weight. I repeat... the wrong weight. This created an immediate overdog situation, wherein a top-level prep job on subject car would allow it to run and hide from any other car in the class. Simple math, really... the power-to-weight ratio of this car is far better than any of the other competitive cars in the class, at the current classified weight. The ITAC is attempting to correct this situation with this and other cars, not necessarily all in ITS... there are 3 other IT classes involved in this laudable effort to level the IT playing field.

64407

:happy204: What he said :happy204:

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 10:33 PM
You need to step back and read EVERYTHING here on this topic... You are very obviously missing some important information that has already been discussed at length in various threads on this topic...

This isn't about the BMW... It's about all of IT... we've explained this, laid it out, etc., for many, many months... there is really only a select group who really disagree with what we are trying to do...

Please go read all the info here before you bury yourself further in this muck...

Hi Darin!

It's entirely possible that I've not read everything that could have been read. I dug back in this forum ("Rules & Regs") and I don't find anything about parameters being changed for the BMWs until about December of 2004, where someone was upset with Andy and accussed him of singling out the cars.

Are there other forums here that I should be digging through? The BMW-specific one? That's much sparser, and maybe I didn't go back far enough. The only relevant thread I noticed was mostly about using weight or using a restrictor plate.

Anyway, I lurked through the "Rules & Regs" thread last year; looking at it again yesterday made me remember how surprised I was at it all. I hadn't heard of the restrictor plate idea before. Anything I had noticed in the FastTrack just said that the suggestions for competive adjustments were tabled because the IT classes at the time didn't guarantee competitiveness.

That charter was changed, and the restrictor plates were added to the BMWs. Now, we're talking about more weight in the cars.

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 10:33 PM
The bottom line concerning your position above is this... we can NOT classify cars based on someones "budget"... we have to consider what a fully developed example is capable of... Not to sound harsh, but yours is NOT that example, base on your description above...

Some classes do classify based on budget or preparation level; I've seen rules where a car is bumped up a class or two for a turbo or supercharger, or down a class for carrying extra weight. Why isn't that possible in the IT classes, now that their charter includes equalization?

Impractical to write the detailed rules? Too difficult at tech? To hard to get it (and keep it!) balanced? Maybe that's why the IT classes were chartered to not offer competitive equality in the first place.

It did come up in one of the other threads (in BMW-specific area, I think) that the drivers who didn't like the proposed changes were also driving cars that weren't as prepared as they could be. Indeed, I guess that might be one of the stumbling blocks for a lot of the drivers. I don't think my competitors are driving cars that are prepared to the top level, and I didn't expect I would have to do so, either. If that's not the case, then I can adjust to it -- but it's still a surprise.

If you have pointers to anything that you think I missed, I'd be happy to go through the material. Finding more details about the process and the committee, in particular, would be very interesting.

Thanks for your help!

Andy Bettencourt

11-02-2005, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 08:15 PM

do we really know the legitimacy of the cars that seem to be overpowered?

We don't know for sure. But I submit that anyone who sends in his/her dyno numbers is pretty close to the up and up. Especially when the dyno sheets support our original estimates.

How does the adivsory committee work? Where can I read their work product?

You can read it in Fast Track...your Bible for rule changes, suggestions and requests for member comment on subjects. You can also ask around. Learn some history, what has changed in the recent past, what is the outlook....

How can I participate, even if it's only to provide my data points?

e-mail anything you want to [email protected]. Requests, suggestions, data, etc.

How was it determined that this problem isn't a local issue that could be corrected by the stewards, instead of a national issue with a very wide-spread rule change?

Because the data supports the history and the theory. Builders supply data, people talk, we race, we learn.

If the rule change really does have to happen, who determines how it works?

The Competition Board. "CRB". Again, at [email protected]

How was the restrictor plate size chosen, for instance? Or the exact weights determined?

The RP was voted on and sized by the CRB. It was not a ITAC recommendation. They have access to a variety of data including but not limited to SCCA Pro Racing (World Challenge, where the many varieties of eligible Bimmers have to run RP's) as well as Z4 information they have garnered over the past 18 months while trying to equalize the competition in SSB.

Weights are determined by a 'process'. This is not an exact science, nor is it a hard and fast 'formula'. It is a strong foundation with some moving targets that the ITAC uses to set weights. Actually, we recommend the weights and the CRB sets them. This 'process' has only been in place for a short while - less than 2 years. The E36 325 was classed before the process was put in place (as were many cars in ITS and other classes but it sticks out as one that is VERY light).

Why wasn't a graduated system put in place, to make competition equality between preparation levels instead of across models?

Because what you suggest is beyond impossible. How do you define prep level? This is racing. Bring your best stuff and build it to the limit. I would NEVER expect to win any form of motorsports without at least equal equipment. To expect otherwise is to have no respect for the talents of your competitors.

Why adjust the E36 cars weight up instead of adjust other cars down, or give them other compensation? How will cars newer and faster than the E36 rigs be handled -- is just thowing weight and plates at the problem the right answer for the long term, or should there be new classes, or other mechanisms for equalizing the field of entrants? What about cars that aren't still equalized to the E36? Will even more weight be added?

Why complicate the issue? Why make many changes when you could only make one? What if these other cars can't get any lower in weight? Continue to read more topics on this board...classes above ITS have been suggested and are in the works for proposals.

The fact that you can run at the front of your class with such a low-prep car is either: more evidence that the E36 is better than anything in the class at it's current weight OR your competition is very weak OR you are the next A. Senna.

What else could it be?

AB

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan+Nov 3 2005, 12:41 AM-->
You kidding right? You come here quoting Dyno numbers and you can't name the dyno place.[/b]

Why is it hard to believe I don't know the name of the business? I was there once for about an hour. I don't have the sheet in front of me. They're one of those funny joints, where the name on the printout doesn't match the business card, and the business card doesn't match the sign out front. I'll stick with Carburetor Connection.

<!--QuoteBegin-Joe Harlan@Nov 3 2005, 12:41 AM
Now that I found the problem with a certain white and yellow Z-car you race against I would look to be winning anything too soon with a boneyard motor.

Who's that? Skip's rig? That'll be great; it'll be wonderful to run with him again. I had lots of fun and learned a ton that season. What was wrong? I bet I know -- he needed more stickers!!

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Gary L@Nov 3 2005, 12:42 AM
Once upon a time, the ITS E36 BMW was classified in ITS at the wrong weight. I repeat... the wrong weight.

Hiya, Gary!

You're saying this like the wrong weight was given to the car as if it was just a mistake. Is that true? Why wasn't it simply remedied? I think I remember reading something about that. Perhaps you can fill in that detail. It seems strange to have gone through all this -- revising the charter of the class, and so on -- just to correct such a mistake.

Banzai240

11-02-2005, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 01:06 AM
The fact that you can run at the front of your class with such a low-prep car is either: more evidence that the E36 is better than anything in the class at it's current weight OR your competition is very weak OR you are the next A. Senna.

What else could it be?

AB

64411

I can tell you from personal experience that most of the 240Zs in ITS around here are maxed out... which leads me to believe it's #1...

Banzai240

11-02-2005, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 3 2005, 01:15 AM
Hiya, Gary!

You're saying this like the wrong weight was given to the car as if it was just a mistake. Is that true? Why wasn't it simply remedied? I think I remember reading something about that. Perhaps you can fill in that detail. It seems strange to have gone through all this -- revising the charter of the class, and so on -- just to correct such a mistake.

64413

The cars performance potential was severely undersestimated upon it's original classification. Then, it was "rectified" and moved back up to 2950lbs, but that was shortly overturned when the BMW crowd complained that they couldn't achieve that weight because of the ballast rules...

Funny, because no one told them they HAD to remove all that crap, and if you've ever seen a Bimmerworld cage, you know that they didn't hold back on the cage material to make up some of the weight!

Now, the ballast rules no longer have a 100lb limit, and we've opened up the allowable area to include not only the footwell, but the passenger (front) seat area as well...

So, as with ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS we've made over the past years to reclassify cars and adjust their weights, this is simply another in a list of corrections that needs to be made to get the spec lines aligned properely with the formal IT classification process...

All of this is before the CRB as we type, and should come out for member comment if they approve it in the next Fastrack... Then, if the BoD approves, it will all take place for 2006... There is a chance that it won't take effect until 2007..... it all depends on the timing ....

If the ITAC had had their way last season, this would have been done then instead of the restrictor, and I suspect that's what most of this uproar is about... two changes in two seasons... I agree... it's not ideal... It also won't happen again. We do NOT want this to be Production... We simply want to get everyone in line so we can move on and go racing...

lateapex911

11-02-2005, 09:31 PM

Wow...

I'm nearly speechless!

Mike, you're late to the game, and you're going to have to buckle up and do some due diligence. Read the rulebook. Dig deep thru this site. 90% of the questions you have asked have been discussed here, ad nauseum. And, if you have been payign attention for the past 4 years, you would know that there haas NEVER been a more cooperative, more transparent or more even handed Advisoy Commitee since the begining of time! The communication between the grand poobahs and the average racer is UNprecedented. You should be thanking your stars ....just three years ago you would be talking to yourself.

IT DOES have a prep level. It's in the rulebook. The NEXT prep level is Production, and the lesser prep level is Touring. IT has HUNDREDs of cars to choose from, and as you have seen you can choose a car, not prep it completely, and do just fine in your own little pond, if you choose your pond carefully.

I think your expectation of Darin calling you is, well, priceless! Why should he call you?? Should he call EVERYONE who has a question?? Why is your question more important? Honestly, he has a job...he has a family...he does a fantastic job in his role as chairman of the ITAC...but why should he call you...when you haven't shown the due diligence necessary to even have a well informed opinion?

If I don't understand how the government works, do I expect Pres Bush to call me and help me out? I am a taxpayer afterall.....

Or, take the other option, keep doing what you're doing. Seems you have a nice little world, and you really don't want to have to bother doing anything to change it. So don't. Just run your car. Count yourself lucky that you are doing so well with such an incomplete grasp of the situation, and such a half prepped car.

(I remember one year in SOLO II, I bought a car because the National Champ from the previous year was local and had one. Of course I got my ass whipped 30 times that year....collected buckets of second and third place trophies. I watched him and tried to learn. When we went to that years nationals (My first time), I was an early runner in a 50 car field, and ran off pace (17th) the first day on a drying track, but was right at the very front the second day...finished 4th overall I think. I was standing next to a guy in grid who was all depressed...he said he had 20 1st place trophies at home, but was getting whupped here...he was 30th. "I had no IDEA you could drive these cars THAT fast he lamented...)

Big ponds, little ponds and all that...

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 09:54 PM

Thanks, Andy!! I'm flattered and excited that you've provided such a detailed response. It really helps me understand the changes, and I'm glad you took the time to write it all up.

Hopefully, you'll continue to give me the benefit of the doubt and understand that my follow-up questions are because I want to have a better understanding and learn more, and not that I'm badgering you or challenging the content of your answers.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Nov 3 2005, 01:06 AM-->
Especially when the dyno sheets support our original estimates.
[/b]The original estimate is the 25% improvement over stock for ITS-allowed mods? I'm curious about how that same number can hold for carbureted cars and EFI cars.


Why complicate the issue? Why make many changes when you could only make one? What if these other cars can't get any lower in weight? Continue to read more topics on this board...classes above ITS have been suggested and are in the works for proposals.[/b]If the goal really is to equalize competition, I can't imagine that only one change is necessary. Before I bought my E36, I tried ITS with a 924S. It was a nightmare. That car needs help, and I think adding 150 poinds to the E36 isn't the answer.

Adding 150 pounds to the car still seems like a challenge. It all has to be in the passenger's side, ahead of the seat mounting area. I'll have to reinforce it to avoid ripping the floor pan if I have an OTE. It's got to be bolted down very specifically, which makes it hard to drop the weight and get to my next class. And it's got to be in 50 pound chunks. That's four bars of lead, each bigger than a one-liter bottle of soda, bolted down in there. Safely.

I remember reading about the new class. IT2, wasn't it? I thought it was completely killed -- or even that it was just a strawman proposal intended to get something done about the problem. I would be far more comfortable with additional classes and a restructuring; it just doesn't make sense to me to try and equalize relatively new models with cars that are 30 years old.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 01:06 AM
Because what you suggest is beyond impossible. How do you define prep level? Well, the book has alredy done it, hasn't it? It's said that a certain level of modifications are the limit. That limit is the baseline: something missing is less, and something additional is more. Establishing rules for this among one make-model of car shouldn't be that hard. Doing it for many makes and models is exponentially hard, for sure.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 01:06 AM
Because the data supports the history and the theory.What data? Just the horsepower-to-weight ratios, or has there been an analysis of cars and their finishing orders and so on?

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 01:06 AM
This is racing. Bring your best stuff and build it to the limit. I would NEVER expect to win any form of motorsports without at least equal equipment.
Conversely, if I'm starting to win after making mods, then why wouldn't I figure that I've become equally prepared?

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 01:06 AM
more evidence that the E36 is better than anything in the class at it's current weight OR your competition is very weak OR you are the next A. Senna.

What else could it be?

The only way I could answer is to learn to estimate how much my mods make a difference -- in time, not even in HP, so I can compare other cars in other regions. Or have them do the same, or come over here and run laps, or something.

Aryton didn't have much to do with beer or hamburgers, so that can't be it. Maybe it is something else: maybe I'm the next Tony Stewart. I think he likes beer.

Thanks again for your answers; those answers, and a productive discussion about them, is what I've been seeking.

Greg Amy

11-02-2005, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 05:47 PM
Pllllease...some non-BMW, non-ITAC members weigh in here.
64371

Why? Seems the BMW guys are doing a fanatastic job kicking themselves in their own balls...why get in the way?

<grin>

MikeBlaszczak

11-02-2005, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 3 2005, 01:31 AM
I think your expectation of Darin calling you is, well, priceless! Why should he call you?? Should he call EVERYONE who has a question?? Why is your question more important? Honestly, he has a job...he has a family...he does a fantastic job in his role as chairman of the ITAC...but why should he call you...when you haven't shown the due diligence necessary to even have a well informed opinion?
Uh, I'm not expecting him to call me. I figured he'd send an email, and that's only because he offered.

Who told you that I was expecting a call?

Joe Harlan

11-02-2005, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak+Nov 2 2005, 06:54 PM-->

If the goal really is to equalize competition, I can't imagine that only one change is necessary. Before I bought my E36, I tried ITS with a 924S. It was a nightmare. That car needs help, and I think adding 150 poinds to the E36 isn't the answer.[/b]

Because the E36 was the biggest misclassification ever in ITS. This has been stated many times on this site and you have decided not to listen.

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 06:54 PM
Adding 150 pounds to the car still seems like a challenge. It all has to be in the passenger's side, ahead of the seat mounting area. I'll have to reinforce it to avoid ripping the floor pan if I have an OTE. It's got to be bolted down very specifically, which makes it hard to drop the weight and get to my next class. And it's got to be in 50 pound chunks. That's four bars of lead, each bigger than a one-liter bottle of soda, bolted down in there. Safely.

No problem start putting the stock stuff back on the car.

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 06:54 PM
it just doesn't make sense to me to try and equalize relatively new models with cars that are 30 years old.

Your right it would be easier to declassify the e36 but since people have invested in them I am glad this group saw fit to try to fix the problem.

<!--QuoteBegin-MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 06:54 PM
Conversely, if I'm starting to win after making mods, then why wouldn't I figure that I've become equally prepared?
Nope again, Let just say this 6500 bucks for a competitive Z motor, 1200 bucks for the header and exhaust on that same car. 4500 bucks for a competitive suspension, This is just the start to run a Z car anywhere near the front. You think that it's right for you to beat these cars with a stock exhaust and a junk yard motor? You should be a able to see that you are not necessarily a getting closer to a being a front runner. What has really happend is you brought a tank to a pistol match.

64419

Joe Harlan

11-02-2005, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 2 2005, 07:08 PM
Why? Seems the BMW guys are doing a fanatastic job kicking themselves in their own balls...why get in the way?

<grin>

64421

Now thats funny!

JeffYoung

11-02-2005, 11:18 PM

Simply unbelievable. A guy with a BMW with a junkyard motor, a borderline (non-race) chip, and a STOCK exhaust manifold is complaining about adding 200 lbs to his car because that means he can't run at the front with his friends and set track records??

Banzai240

11-02-2005, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 3 2005, 01:54 AM
The original estimate is the 25% improvement over stock for ITS-allowed mods? I'm curious about how that same number can hold for carbureted cars and EFI cars.

You may not undestand this because you haven't been here long enough to have read it, but the ITAC uses varied percentage-improvements with IT-prep depending on the configuration... 25% is a rough starting point for an EFI car... You'll find that there are Hondas, Acuras, and others that actually make closer to 30-35% with "legal" IT prep... This is based on dyno runs that were provided to us by competitors, as well as by CRB members who happen to do a lot of dyno work...

For the BMW, we are giving the car the benefit of the doubt... 25% is what several examples (yes, dyno sheets, etc..) have shown, but there are others sources that suggest the number is closer to 35%... No, we can't prove that these are legal, but then, that's not our job... It's YOURS... NO one seems to have the balls to do it, however... That's not really our problem...

So, for the E36, we decided to give the car the benefit of the doubt and use numbers we feel are legit and legal... they are obviously achievable... This notion is fully supported by your own numbers, which show 170whp for an unprepared junk-yard motor... Imagine what that motor would produce with an overbore, maxed compression (.5 over listed compression), perfect valve timing, a proper Motec or similiar ECU, port matching, and a real exhaust system... Not to mention alternate pullies, etc... which were recently made legal for all cars... I feel VERY comforatable that this car makes at LEAST 195whp with IT prep...

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak+Nov 3 2005, 01:54 AM-->
If the goal really is to equalize competition, I can't imagine that only one change is necessary. Before I bought my E36, I tried ITS with a 924S. It was a nightmare. That car needs help, and I think adding 150 poinds to the E36 isn't the answer.
[/b]

You've missed a post somewhere, because I'm positive I've stated a couple of times that this is a PLAN... a STRATEGIC PLAN, if you will, for Improved Touring... It involves a documented formal classification process, explanations of said process, justification and need for allowing class alignement adjustments, and a list of 38 or so cars that the ITAC has determined need to be adjusted in ITS through ITB (ITC was deemed to be close the way it was, so we could find little supporting data to justify altering anything with that class...)...

So, you see, this is a BIG change to the entire IT structure, theoretically, and, in reality, just a lot of classification adjustments to get cars in line with one-another...

As I've said in this very thread... this is NOT an attack on the BMW... That's only one car on the list... The only reason we are talking about it today is because you guys keep bringing it up and we feel compelled to set the record straight and be honest with you guys about what we are doing and why...

<!--QuoteBegin-MikeBlaszczak@Nov 3 2005, 01:54 AM
Adding 150 pounds to the car still seems like a challenge. It all has to be in the passenger's side, ahead of the seat mounting area. I'll have to reinforce it to avoid ripping the floor pan if I have an OTE. It's got to be bolted down very specifically, which makes it hard to drop the weight and get to my next class. And it's got to be in 50 pound chunks. That's four bars of lead, each bigger than a one-liter bottle of soda, bolted down in there. Safely.

First off, this is where you need to go read your ITCS... We specifically had the ballast rules changed to accomodate this very thing... The legal area was extended to include the passenger seat area as well... an area that is PLENTY strong to hold 300 or so lbs, (Heaven forbid someones girlfriend/wife is that size! :blink: ) and also an area which should help put the weight in a more favorable spot. You see, we DO still want these to be RACE CARS...

The rules allow for reinforcing the floor area for the ballast, and it's not really our job to make sure you can "make it to your next class"... That's your engineering problem to deal with...

I can tell you from personal experience, however, that 150lbs of weight is NOT that large a volume of material... I had to add that much to my 240SX to run in Radial Sedan a few years back, and it consisted of some 1/2" thick x 3" wide x 12" long steel plates, stacked up to and bolted into a World Challenge rewards weight box... Could have fit it all in a shoe box...

Funny, no one compains about safety when it comes to wanting to mount a battery inside the car in the very same location??? :blink:

I hope this helps...

Joe Harlan

11-02-2005, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 08:22 PM
(Heaven forbid someones girlfriend/wife is that size! )

64432

Hey this is no way to talk about my mistress.....I take her out on test days for Ballast.... :o

MikeBlaszczak

11-03-2005, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240+Nov 3 2005, 03:22 AM-->
For the BMW, we are giving the car the benefit of the doubt... 25% is what several examples (yes, dyno sheets, etc..) have shown, but there are others sources that suggest the number is closer to 35%... No, we can't prove that these are legal, but then, that's not our job... It's YOURS... NO one seems to have the balls to do it, however... That's not really our problem...
[/b]
Not have the courage to file the protests, you mean? For competition, I'd agree with that being up to the involved drivers. I get the impression that it doesn't happen as often as it should.

But if you're using these numbers for a basis that's going to involve all cars everywhere, I wouldn't have thought you would want to get the data as clean as you could. Why wouldn't data cleansing for thier own purpose be up to the committe itself? If the basis your using isn't correct, then won't your complete product be off?

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 3 2005, 03:22 AM
You've missed a post somewhere, because I'm positive I've stated a couple of times that this is a PLAN... a STRATEGIC PLAN, if you will, for Improved Touring... Hey! For once, it's not about me missing something. I'm responding to Andy there, who asserted that only one change was necessary.

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 3 2005, 03:22 AM
It involves a documented formal classification process, explanations of said process, justification and need for allowing class alignement adjustments, and a list of 38 or so cars that the ITAC has determined need to be adjusted in ITS through ITB (ITC was deemed to be close the way it was, so we could find little supporting data to justify altering anything with that class...)...Sure; I'm aware that it's a process, and that adjusting the BMWs again is just one of the first visible steps. But, again, I'd love to read the documentation and explanations you've mentioned. Are they publicly availalbe?

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Nov 3 2005, 03:22 AM
As I've said in this very thread... this is NOT an attack on the BMW... That's only one car on the list... The only reason we are talking about it today is because you guys keep bringing it up and we feel compelled to set the record straight and be honest with you guys about what we are doing and why...And I appreciate that. (Even if you never call.)

My only gripe is that the process is so clumsy; do you really expect drivers who want to know what's going on to "read EVERYTHING" in the forums here? Read the history of the issue through every issue of FastTrack over the last couple of years? What's the painless way to gain insight into the process, and catch up to the progress so far?

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 3 2005, 03:22 AM
First off, this is where you need to go read your ITCS... We specifically had the ballast rules changed to accomodate this very thing... The legal area was extended to include the passenger seat area as well... an area that is PLENTY strong to hold 300 or so lbs,I have; I'm looking at the "2005 Edition", and in D.9.L it says that the position has to be aft of the firewall and fore of the passenger seat. Until four or five posts ago, when you said this was recently relaxed, I didn't think I had any other option. (Curiously, the reduced pullies are in this copy.)

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 3 2005, 03:22 AM
I hope this helps...Absolutely! Thanks for answering my questions.

Geo

11-03-2005, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 11:24 PM
My only gripe is that the process is so clumsy; do you really expect drivers who want to know what's going on to "read EVERYTHING" in the forums here? Read the history of the issue through every issue of FastTrack over the last couple of years? What's the painless way to gain insight into the process, and catch up to the progress so far?

Mike, I'm not sure how to respond to you. You say you want to know what is going on. But you don't want to go through the "pain" of reading up. What do you want? Do you really want or expect a personal tutoring session? That's not going to happen. We're all adults here. If knowing is valuable to you, you'll expend some time and energy on your own to learn. If it's not, don't expect people to spoon feed you. If you do at least some research on your own and ask decent questions based upon that research I've always found this group eager and willing to help. Like many things in life, don't expect to get things just because you want them. It doesn't work that way.

Forgive me if this sounds condesending. It's not intended to be. It's just straight talk from my perspective.

Having said that, I'm one of "them" (ITAC members). Indulge me for a moment because I want to share something I wrote (in brief here) on the ITAC's private message board today.....

When I joined the ITAC was wasn't sure about PCAs (performance compensation adjustments). I finally came to the conclusion that IT needed some changes because of the proliferation of spec and one-make classes that were springing up seemingly everywhere (and taking cars away from IT). Today not only are spec classes not popping up everywhere anymore, but more and more cars that would have been built for spec classes are being built for IT. A lot of the reason for this is the vision Darin has had for the category. It has taken some time but it's coming to fruition. Today many jaded veterans of IT racing are very pleased with the outlook for IT. Hang in there. The future is bright.

JeffYoung

11-03-2005, 01:12 AM

Exactly George.

Question for the BMW guys:

Do you all think or feel that other ITS drivers don't want your cars in S? I for one do. I actually don't think the BMW is an unbeatable overdog, so long as it is classed at the correct weight. I'd much prefer to have you guys running with us versus in J Prepared with BMWCCA.

I guess what I am saying is, from this non-ITAC, non-BMW ITS driver who has LOTS of development and driving improvement to do to get anywhere near the front, I want BMWs to set the bar, but I want them to do so under the same ground rules as everyone else.

Right now, I think you guys have to admit the car is classed too light for its potential. Why is it a witch hunt to fix that?

I have heard and seen the grumblings that the extra 200 lbs that should come will run some of you off. Well, taht sucks, I don't want you to leave. But remember this -- the LACK of that 200 lbs and the resulting uber-competitiveness of even average BMWs with new or newer drivers has driven off a lot of other ITS cars.

Ask the Z crowd how many SARRC and MARRS Zs have been parked because of the E36. Understand that people who have brand loyalty to 240sxs, and Integras and 190Es are not building these cars and doing other things BECAUSE it is so hard to reach the benchmark set by an average BMW.

In the long run, while you may disagree with the process and even what you perceive to be their motives, a leveling of the playing field so taht average BMWs DO NOT set track records is good for the health of the class. It will hopefully bring back those missing Z cars, and result in others looking at different cars to build and develop for S.

I will say that right now, continuing to develop my S car when I know I have a long way to go, a lot of time to invest and a lot of money to spend to even get to the level of a BMW with a stock exhaust is pretty depressing. But I am going to keep at it, in no small part because ITS v.2006 or 2007 is going to be a much more level playing field for everyone. I look forward to it. I wish you guys would too, because if things play out like I think the ITAC wants, we should have large, competitive ITS fields with lots of makes dicing for the win.

Hang around and see how it pans out.

seckerich

11-03-2005, 01:25 AM

I just love "Seminar callers" who keep stroking for answers they already know!! Lets lead the horse to water---help him drink--hold his hand until he is happy--and tell him he gets a trophy even when his car is under prepped and cry he has to spend money in this big expensive sport like the rest of us. Buy the book-do your homework--and come back to school when you learn something. Spec whatever is calling you!!! :smilie_pokal:
Steve Eckerich
ITS RX7 (Well developed)

Joe Harlan

11-03-2005, 01:31 AM

Mike I have to ask. Have you ever run an SCCA race?

its66

11-03-2005, 01:51 AM

[/QUOTE]"And who are they? Who appointed them? From what I've read here so far, they come off like a bunch of vigilantes. What's their charter? How do I join? How many BMW drivers are in the ITAC?"

They are the guys who have taken the time to respond 10 times in one day to try to explain this. That hardly sounds like "a bunch of vigilantes". To me, it looks like three guys who have made some huge steps toward correcting some of the previous "sins" of some older classifications.

I know you have heard this several times already, but if you are running without a proper exhaust system, the right gearing (rear), good tires, great shocks, etc. You can't expect to run up front, period.

What's the plan for when the 924S guys start complaining, or the 1.8L Miata guys get angry? Bring the E36 to 3450 or so?

Everyone is already complaining about the e36's, except the e36's.

[quote]Dropping ten grand on a motor isn't "fun racing" in this regional class, for club racing. And that's why I think some over-prepared cars are upsetting the balance in certain regions, and an attempt to solve that problem nationally is ill-advised.

You are right, $10k engines aren't fun. But, fact is, there are many $40,000+ ITS cars scattered across the country. They might be Mazdas here, and BMW's up there, while it may be 944's over yonder, but htey are there, and we all have to race against them. Racing isn't cheap. Unless we adopted a "claimer" rule, this is always a possiblity. Somebody always has more money. The rules have to take that into consideration. They have to assume that since match porting, .040 over, + 1/2 point compression, ECU work,exhaust work are allowed, that racers will actually use these items to make their car faster. That is the type of factors that the 25% increase estimation comes from. As for the claimer rule...let's not go there. IIRC that was another 10 page rant a couple of years ago.

I thought it was absurd to introduce competition balancing to ITS in the first place; there are other balanced classes where its appropriate -- if someone feels they're not getting a fair shake, they should investigate those classes.

While I'm not directly involved with any decison making, my understanding is that part of the reason for the "competition balancing" was to allow the CRB a method to correct clasification errors. Prior to which time, there was no system within the rules which allowed for a correction. This gave the Comp Board a tool to use.

This doesn't sound absurd to me.

[quote]if someone feels they're not getting a fair shake, they should investigate those classes.

But if almost everyone feels the BMW is classed wrong, then what do you do? Do you run off the entire non bmw field, or adjust the bmw? Now, the bmw feels he isn't getting a fair deal, mainly because the "original deal" was too good to be true. Understood, but it is something that needs to happen.

Before you write these three guys off as biased or vigilantes, remember that 3 years ago, you would not have gotten any feedback. (ask Kirk or Bill) These guys are trying to get things balanced. They are as open with us( the racers, constituents if you will) as seems possible. They have outlined-not detailed-the basics of a plan to try to fix many classification problems throughout Improved Touring(not just ITS). They have stated repeatedly that the e36 is not on this plan at this time. They want to continue to monitor that particular vehicle to fully assess the effects of the restrictor plate. (sounds fair-again)

Not to offend, but if you had presented a 100% car, and supported it with factual data about development, dyno time, shocks, custom gears, new hoosiers/goodyears every weekend, and the same development that is put into the front running Z cars and RX7's, your position might have been received more positively. Unfortunately, it appears that you are basically concerned with the performance of one car, not with the viability of the class as a whole. A 80%prepared X-mobile should not be able to check out on an equally well driven 100% Y-mobile. This is the type situation that they (ITAC) are trying to correct. Not just in ITS, but all classes.

Now, can the moderator ban any thread which mentions e36 or 325? :) Everytime they get mentioned, the damn black helicopters come back.

its66

11-03-2005, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by seckerich@Nov 3 2005, 05:25 AM
I just love "Seminar callers" who keep stroking for answers they already know!! Lets lead the horse to water---help him drink--hold his hand until he is happy--and tell him he gets a trophy even when his car is under prepped and cry he has to spend money in this big expensive sport like the rest of us. Buy the book-do your homework--and come back to school when you learn something. Spec whatever is calling you!!! :smilie_pokal:
Steve Eckerich
ITS RX7 (Well developed)

64442

Agreed
I should have just let Steve sum it up. I would have saved alot of typing.

lateapex911

11-03-2005, 02:08 AM

This is TOO f-ing funny!

So, all the BMW guys have NO problem bolting in a 250 pound human onto a 50+ pound seat...that all bolts to four seat mount bolts at every driver ed event from Bangor to San Diego, but actually using engineering to bolt some inanimate objects to the same area suddenly becomes a big safety concern???

yea yea yea, I know, a lead brick to my ribs is going to hurt more than big guy with a helmet flying around the interior in the event of an "OCE"... but lets not split hairs here.

pullleeeezzz..... think logically....if you can't figure out a solution, give it to someone (anyone, LOL) who can.

Z3_GoCar

11-03-2005, 02:11 AM

Now, can the moderator ban any thread which mentions e36 or 325? :) Everytime they get mentioned, the damn black helicopters come back.

64444
[/quote]

The Z3 is an e-36 but I don't see it geting the kind of press. I say form a Uber-class and put the sedan there with the 2.8l Z3, S-2K, Boxter, and any other car knocking on the 200hp door.

James

Joe Harlan

11-03-2005, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Nov 2 2005, 11:11 PM
Now, can the moderator ban any thread which mentions e36 or 325? :) Everytime they get mentioned, the damn black helicopters come back.

64444

The Z3 is an e-36 but I don't see it geting the kind of press. I say form a Uber-class and put the sedan there with the 2.8l Z3, S-2K, Boxter, and any other car knocking on the 200hp door.

James

64447

Why do we need that. Those cars could come in with an SIR that woud limit the HP they could make.

lateapex911

11-03-2005, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 09:54 PM
Conversely, if I'm starting to win after making mods, then why wouldn't I figure that I've become equally prepared?

Conversely, you have shown a grasp of the written word, and displayed reasoning and intellegence...I am very sure you are aware the world does not end at your driveway.

The only way I could answer is to learn to estimate how much my mods make a difference -- in time, not even in HP,
64419

if you are discussing engine mods, then the dyno, or simple acceleration curves are your best bet. Lap times will be influenced by too many other factors to be meaningful.

So, let me understand....clearly.

You have a "junkyard" engine, that has been serviced, (but not modded), a semi race chip, a cat back exhaust, some pullies and such, and you are keeping up with, and even winning races against what Joe Harlan and Darin say are well prepped to the nines Z cars??

That does NOT sound right....are you sure about your engine? Is there something you missed?

cbuzzetti

11-03-2005, 03:19 AM

Links to CalClub (So-Cal SCCA) results and records.

http://www.calclub.com/html/headerpages/ro...ing/results.htm (http://www.calclub.com/html/headerpages/roadracing/results.htm)

Go to regional, select a date, see race results. These go back to 1/04

Same page has track records for 04-05

This page has results for San Francisco Region SCCA going back to 1995. Please look at most recent regioal race at Laguna Seca to see new track record set by E46 BMW. The E36 runs competitively with the RX7's.

http://www.sfrscca.org/Results/index.html

Here is the link for track records for SFR SCCA.

http://www.sfrscca.org/RoadRacing/Records/index.html

Just some data for the mix.

Charles Buzzetti
ITS Rx7 #78
CalClub SCCA

cbuzzetti

11-03-2005, 03:27 AM

Here is the results from the race I was speaking of in the above post.
We had 7 ITS cars within one second of each other.
The E46 was 2 seconds faster than the next fastest ITS car.
The driver of the BMW is very capable as are the top 5 ITS drivers in this region.

http://www.sfrscca.org/Results/20051001/gr5.htm

The BMW did not run on Sunday. It was my understanding that this was the first outing for this car.

Charles Buzzetti
ITS Rx7 #78

Byron Smith

11-03-2005, 03:55 AM

As the guy who started this thread, I just thought I would give you an update. My original thought was to prepare an BMW 325 (E36) for ITS.

I just bought a 95 BMW M3 that I intend to prepare for C Mod in BMWCCA, and maybe run occasionally in our local ITE garbage class. Four reasons. One, I already run a SM and intend to keep running it, and hopefully developing the car and my skills to run closer to the front. Plenty of competition there with a more even playing field and less (much less) bickering. Sure, the class may have problems unique to a spec class, but still, in the end, the cars are pretty close with the same driver skills.

Two, the speed difference between front running SM and ITS cars are just not that different. This obviously is only of concern to me and others in a similar situation.

Three, the difference in cost between developing a good ITS car and a (much) faster CMod car isn't all that significant. I'm relating this to BMW of course since I haven't priced out other ITS cars.

Four, I'm just not interested in putting my dollars and interest in building a car for a target that seems to be in great debate and uncertainty. And it doesn't look to end any time soon. Basically, there seems to be just too much acrimony here for me to develop much affinity with this group.

Maybe I'm judging this unfairly, and I'm sure I'd probably get along great with most of you individually. But still, I'm out.

See you on the track.

lateapex911

11-03-2005, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Nov 3 2005, 03:55 AM
........ I'm just not interested in putting my dollars and interest in building a car for a target that seems to be in great debate and uncertainty. And it doesn't look to end any time soon. Basically, there seems to be just too much acrimony here for me to develop much affinity with this group.

.... But still, I'm out.

See you on the track.

64453

So basically you are saying that either you:

Have no faith the car will be treated fairly and end up a front runner, (but not the ONLY front runner, empirically,) or..

You have no interest in racing the car when it's heads up with other makes.

dickita15

11-03-2005, 07:26 AM

Mike I would like to to thank you for the improvement in your tone in the last 48 hours. I appreciate it.

Joe Harlan

11-03-2005, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by cbuzzetti@Nov 3 2005, 12:27 AM
Here is the results from the race I was speaking of in the above post.
We had 7 ITS cars within one second of each other.
The E46 was 2 seconds faster than the next fastest ITS car.
The driver of the BMW is very capable as are the top 5 ITS drivers in this region.

http://www.sfrscca.org/Results/20051001/gr5.htm

The BMW did not run on Sunday. It was my understanding that this was the first outing for this car.

Charles Buzzetti
ITS Rx7 #78

64451

Charles, your example is probably the best example of why the car is an overdog.

John Norris probably has the best prepared and certainly the best driven BMW in the country. From all the results I have ever seen John is 2 to 4 secs quicker on any given track than any of the other ITS cars competing.
My expectation of how the system will fix this is. John will still likely win every race because of his ability and prep level but an equally prepped and driven car will have a shot at him. In no way are any of my comments meant to take anything away from Mr. Norris or his car. The E46 that you pointed out as a new car looks to have been prepped by yoes racing. I do not know the driver but I am sure the prep level out of that shop is top notch. I owuld expect to see that car get even better with a few races.

Byron, I really hope your kidding here. You have a chance to join one of the best racing classes in the country and build what will be a very competitive model under any plan. The E36 regardless more weight or a proper restrictor will still be the class of the field if it is prepped to a top level.

Bill Miller

11-03-2005, 10:07 AM

You sound like a selfish, spoiled, man-child - the kind of stereotype on which the BMW logo penis enlargement pump was based.

Ok Kirk, you owe me a new keyboard and monitor, not to mention another cup of Starbucks!!!

Mike,

I really don't have the energy, nor the time, to address all of your issues (I guess it was a good thing that I made dinner at my g/f's last night, and didn't get to see this 'live').

Unfortunately, Kirk's description seems to fit more and more, w/ each post you make. Let's see if I can hit a few of the high points though.

* Different weights for different prep levels

Not really what the SCCA is all about, and honestly, this is the first time I've ever heard this concept floated. As Andy (at least I think it was Andy) said, if you want to run at the front, you better be prepared to bring your A-game. That means building a car to the limit of the rules. If that's more money than you want to spend, perhaps the SCCA isn't the place for you, or as some say OSB (Other Sports Beckon).

* Setting track records/winning w/ what is essentially a street car w/ a cage.

You sound like a somewhat intelligent guy. How do you not see an issue with this? And how can you possibly think that you're fully prepared, when you run a junkyard motor? And the way you learn how much of a difference your mods make is through this little thing called testing. You spend the money, make the change, and put the car on the track. You attempt to do it in a somewhat controlled environment, so you can isolate the impact of said change.

* Wanting SCCA rules to make it easier for you to run w/ another organization (in response to your comment about dropping the weight to make your next class)

See Kirk's comments about selfish and spoiled

I know there's much more, but I really need to get some work done.

BTW, anybody notice how none of the E36 folks have weighed in on Mike's comments? I wonder why that is? :P

Bruce Shafer

11-03-2005, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 04:43 PM
OK, 170hp is noted...

As for Dynos... I'll have to go look for the other sheet at home, but I've posted this one previously, with the permission of the owner of the car in question (don't know the dyno type):

Darin, would you kindly take my address and phone number off of this post? I've been having trouble with Michael Schumacher stalking me and I don't want to have the same problem with RX7 drivers.

:D

Thanks.

robits325is

11-03-2005, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by cbuzzetti@Nov 3 2005, 03:27 AM
We had 7 ITS cars within one second of each other.
The E46 was 2 seconds faster than the next fastest ITS car.

Charles Buzzetti
ITS Rx7 #78

64451

niiiiiiiiiiiice.

Bruce Shafer

11-03-2005, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by robits325is@Nov 3 2005, 01:10 PM
niiiiiiiiiiiice.

64502

Wait, what you really mean is that must have been some kind of freak result.

One more post like that on this site and you'll have another 200 lbs of trophy lead in the E46 come January 2006. :rolleyes:

Andy Bettencourt

11-03-2005, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Nov 3 2005, 01:18 PM
Wait, what you really mean is that must have been some kind of freak result.

One more post like that on this site and you'll have another 200 lbs of trophy lead in the E46 come January 2006. :rolleyes:

64505

That's the kicker...probably not. The E46 323 fits the process...so it's unlikely it would be changed unless some factors come to light that were missed.

AB

Banzai240

11-03-2005, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 05:25 PM
That's the kicker...probably not. The E46 323 fits the process...so it's unlikely it would be changed unless some factors come to light that were missed.

AB

64507

What Andy says... The ITAC feels very happy with the E46 classficiation as it stands...

Unless we get enough data to show that this car makes some kind of unique HP increase with IT prep, it's right where the process says it should be...

That's kind of been the point of this whole deal..... With this kind of performance coming from a car with 19-less HP stock, how can anyone justify keeping the E36 at it current weight?? :unsure:

Joe Harlan

11-03-2005, 02:04 PM

Agian not to take away from anyone but. DAve allen was the second place car. Dave tends to run on a conservative budget and toyo tires the last time I was there. This car says it was prepped by yoes preformance and I know if this is Mike he is a top level guy. The only thing I don't know here is the bcakground of the driver.

PS the track record was not broke.

ITS 1:44.501 77.09 RANDY EVANS S LAKE TAHOE, CA 90 MAZDA 05-23-2004

This is the current record above.

1 76 +ITS 1 MIKE COURTNEY(271045), MILL VALEY YOES RACING 28 SF 95 BMW 13 1:44.604

close.

Knestis

11-03-2005, 02:46 PM

I'd like to apologize for my earlier rant. It looked like Mr. B. jigging for a flame war but to his credit, he didin't take my clumsy bait. My estimation of him increased because of it.

K

MikeBlaszczak

11-03-2005, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 3 2005, 05:00 AM
Mike, I'm not sure how to respond to you. You say you want to know what is going on. But you don't want to go through the "pain" of reading up. What do you want? Do you really want or expect a personal tutoring session? That's not going to happen. We're all adults here. If knowing is valuable to you, you'll expend some time and energy on your own to learn. If it's not, don't expect people to spoon feed you. If you do at least some research on your own and ask decent questions based upon that research I've always found this group eager and willing to help. Like many things in life, don't expect to get things just because you want them. It doesn't work that way.

Once the chaffe has fallen away from the wheat, you're right; this group is incredibly helpful.

I'm not expecting people to spoon feed me. If you look at the responses, you can see the comittee members are getting tired of answering the same questions.

To address both issues, why not make a post that explains everything, set it read only, and sticky it to the top of the forum? Why not write a whietepaper and post it? A FAQ? Get it into a single document that's updated, or a single place where the history can be read.

I don't mind digging around to find the document (or history, or book) that I need to read. Piecing through every issue of FastTrack; then stumbling on this forum, trying to figure out who the players are, filtering through the flames and emotional responses to try to get to the meat ... that's more than most people have time or patience for.

Such a document is hardly a "personal tutoring session". It's an effective, efficient way for the committe to share its cumulative policies, procedures, findings, and reasoning. It saves time for both the committee and the people the committtee serves.

Do you know where I can get a copy?

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 3 2005, 05:00 AM
Hang in there. The future is bright.I haven't doubted a bright future, and I'm glad ya'll are trying to improve the sport.

MikeBlaszczak

11-03-2005, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by dickita15@Nov 3 2005, 11:26 AM
Mike I would like to to thank you for the improvement in your tone in the last 48 hours. I appreciate it.

Thank you for your kind words, Dick.

I'm truly sorry if the way I've approached this or what I've written has offended anyone. I've learned a lot from the intelligent and thoughtful responses that I've received, and I'm always eager to learn more.

Bill Miller

11-03-2005, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 3 2005, 02:47 PM
Once the chaffe has fallen away from the wheat, you're right; this group is incredibly helpful.

I'm not expecting people to spoon feed me. If you look at the responses, you can see the comittee members are getting tired of answering the same questions.

To address both issues, why not make a post that explains everything, set it read only, and sticky it to the top of the forum? Why not write a whietepaper and post it? A FAQ? Get it into a single document that's updated, or a single place where the history can be read.

I don't mind digging around to find the document (or history, or book) that I need to read. Piecing through every issue of FastTrack; then stumbling on this forum, trying to figure out who the players are, filtering through the flames and emotional responses to try to get to the meat ... that's more than most people have time or patience for.

Such a document is hardly a "personal tutoring session". It's an effective, efficient way for the committe to share its cumulative policies, procedures, findings, and reasoning. It saves time for both the committee and the people the committtee serves.

Do you know where I can get a copy?

I haven't doubted a bright future, and I'm glad ya'll are trying to improve the sport.

64530

Well Mike, for one thing, this site has no 'official' standing w/ the SCCA. I submit that the information that you seek would be better placed on the SCCA website. Perhaps you should write a letter requesting it. Offical policy statements or answers to FAQs, belong on the SCCA site.

What this site is, is an open, unofficial forum, that happens to have as some of its participants, several of the key players in the IT community.

cbuzzetti

11-03-2005, 07:46 PM

I stand corrected it was not a new race record but a new qualifying record.
http://www.sfrscca.org/Results/20051001/gq5.htm
You will notice that the next fastest car was 2.2 seconds back and was on Hoosiers.
Most of the top ITS cars are running Hoosiers in SFR.
Laguna Seca has to have just the right conditions to run at the Race Record pace.
I have been within a .5 second of record race pace but everyone else was fast that day also.
The BMW set a new Q record on a day when the track was slow.
The evidence is in the close lap times of the other 7 ITS cars.

Joe Harlan

11-03-2005, 10:50 PM

Agian charles the whole story:

History of qualifiying records well prepped and well driven.

ITS 1:44.727 76.93 MIKE COURTNEY MILL VALEY, CA 95 BMW 09-30-2005

ITS 1:44.981 76.74 BRANDON KRAUS CASTRO VALLEY, CA 83 PORSCHE 944 11-09-1996

ITS 1:45.391 76.44 BRANDON KRAUS CASTRO VALLEY, CA 83 PORSCHE 944 09-
29-1996

It would look to me that the record has been in place since 96...And imagine people saying the 944 isn't competitive. :smilie_pokal:

Race records:
ITS 1:44.501 77.09 RANDY EVANS S LAKE TAHOE, CA 90 MAZDA 05-23-2004

ITS 1:44.812 76.86 BRANDON KRAUS CASTRO VALLEY, CA 83 PORSCHE 944 11-10-1996

ITS 1:45.988 76.01 BRANDON KRAUS CASTRO VALLEY, CA 83 PORSCHE 944 09-29-1996

For prospective: ITA Race records:
ITA 1:46.597 75.58 BOB STRETCH GARDEN GROVE, CA 89 NSSN 240SX 07-27-1997
ITA 1:47.135 75.20 BOB STRETCH GARDEN GROVE, CA 89 NISN 240 S 06-08-1997
ITA 1:48.879 73.99 NICHOLAS THEROUX REDWOOD CITY, CA 89 HONDA CRX 03-16-1997
ITA 1:49.058 73.87 NICHOLAS THEROUX REDWOOD CITY, CA 89 HONDA CRX 09-29-1996
ITA 1:50.904 72.64 JOHN BECKWITH OAKLAND, CA 88/CRX Si/HONDA 03-31-1996

BMW RACER

11-03-2005, 10:54 PM

I was going to stay out of this, but since my name came up I feel I should weigh in. Dont read too much into my sucsess in Southern California, (Joe Harlen, I owe you a beer) most of that is due to a dire lack of competition (one of the reasons I'm looking elsewhere for next season) Chuck Buzzetti has the potential to keep me honest when he gets his car dialed in. Last year I ventured up North for two races and got beat both time by Randy Evans' RX7!

Joe Harlan

11-03-2005, 11:06 PM

Dont read too much into my sucsess in Southern California, (Joe Harlen, I owe you a beer) most of that is due to a dire lack of competition

Now your either neing modest or you blowing a little sunshine up my tailpipe. Do I need to go get Frank into this conversation. I would think that his 300Z should be somewhere close to as competitive as they come.

Joe

mlytle

11-04-2005, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 3 2005, 06:08 AM
This is TOO f-ing funny!

So, all the BMW guys have NO problem bolting in a 250 pound human onto a 50+ pound seat...that all bolts to four seat mount bolts at every driver ed event from Bangor to San Diego, but actually using engineering to bolt some inanimate objects to the same area suddenly becomes a big safety concern???

yea yea yea, I know, a lead brick to my ribs is going to hurt more than big guy with a helmet flying around the interior in the event of an "OCE"... but lets not split hairs here.

pullleeeezzz..... think logically....if you can't figure out a solution, give it to someone (anyone, LOL) who can.

64446

ummm, maybe you need to to be the one thinking logically here.. :)
that passenger person is sitting in a seat that is bolted to four points of the floor that are structurally reinforced at the factory for this purpose. the person is held in that seat by a harness or seatbelt that is anchored to a roll cage or to additional mounting points on the b-pillar and rocker area. again, reinforced for this purpose.
--vs--
bolting 200+lbs of weight to the sheet metal foot well area of floor that was not designed to support that much weight.

yes, it is a concern. if the weight can be put somewhere other than just the foot well, the concern changes.

Joe Harlan

11-04-2005, 01:04 AM

yes, it is a concern. if the weight can be put somewhere other than just the foot well, the concern changes.

I agree I have always said if you want weight to work correctly you have to put in a proper place. I think 100lbs bolted to the core support would have more effect that the passenger side of a RWD or FWD car. Now rear engine rear drive hand it behind the rear axle for a proper effect. There is no reason a proper ballest box could not be built. I believe Darin has a god example of one in his car asn if he can't photo it I will get mine out of the trailer this weekend. For any system to work there has to be a willingness to make it work.

cbuzzetti

11-04-2005, 01:52 AM

John I knew we could eventually drag you in.
I wish I could get my electrical problems solved. Having to cycle the key to fix the limp mode issue during the race just isn't any fun.
My plan is to remove the engine harness and do a full inspection to see if I am having a intermitant short some where. Unfortunately it does not show up until about the 3rd session of the day.
I have replace almost every electrical component on the car. Oh well!!!
John did you race on Hoosiers when you went north?
My fastest lap at Laguna was on Toyo's. I must of had everything just right and made less than 4 mistakes.
Randy sure can drive that RX7 not to mention it is prepared very well.

See you at the CalClub enduro, Cheers!

BMW RACER

11-04-2005, 12:15 PM

Now your either neing modest or you blowing a little sunshine up my tailpipe. Do I need to go get Frank into this conversation. I would think that his 300Z should be somewhere close to as competitive as they come.
Joe

Franks car is very well prepared and driven, but Frank will be the first to admit that the 300zx is not the hot tip for ITS. Frank has a long history with Datsun/Nissan That's why he chose that car.

John did you race on Hoosiers when you went north?

Chuck. I stepped up and plonked down the dosh for Hoosiers both times I went up against Randy. I needed all the help I could get! Toyo's were about a second a lap slower.

lateapex911

11-04-2005, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by mlytle@Nov 4 2005, 12:19 AM
ummm, maybe you need to to be the one thinking logically here.. :)
that passenger person is sitting in a seat that is bolted to four points of the floor that are structurally reinforced at the factory for this purpose. the person is held in that seat by a harness or seatbelt that is anchored to a roll cage or to additional mounting points on the b-pillar and rocker area. again, reinforced for this purpose.
--vs--
bolting 200+lbs of weight to the sheet metal foot well area of floor that was not designed to support that much weight.

yes, it is a concern. if the weight can be put somewhere other than just the foot well, the concern changes.

64593

Italics mine...isn't it possible to utilize those same mounting points? If they are strong enough for the leverage and moments a seat will impart, I would think they would be an ideal point to mount a bracket of sorts for weight.

Maybe I am missing the logic of something though..

Banzai240

11-04-2005, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 5 2005, 02:31 AM
Italics mine...isn't it possible to utilize those same mounting points? If they are strong enough for the leverage and moments a seat will impart, I would think they would be an ideal point to mount a bracket of sorts for weight.

Maybe I am missing the logic of something though..

64655

Guys,

This isn't even an issue... The rules EXPLICITLY allow you to reinforce the area where the ballast is to be placed, so all this safety stuff is BS... The rules mandate how it must be mounted, and there are cars in Production and GT that carry 200+ lbs all the time...

I made ballast for my car from 1/2" x 3" x 12" steel plate... Added 140lbs and it took up less space as a shoe box... Here is a pic of the passenger side... You can see the mount just in front of the fire-bottle:

http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/SCCA/240SX_Ballast_Plate.JPG

At one time, when running Radial Sedan, I had 140lbs of ballast bolted to that plate.... I'll have to go out an measure it again, but the bolts I needed were not that long... This plate happens to have 4-nuts attached to it, so you can use up to 4-bolts if you like... and you could use multiple mounting positions to spread the load...

The point is that all this safety stuff is unwarranted... the ballast can be as safely mounted as YOU want it to be...

I'm curious as to how many of you who are worried about the ballast were all for moving the battery location to this very spot??

snowmann

11-04-2005, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 5 2005, 03:41 AM

I'm curious as to how many of you who are worried about the ballast were all for moving the battery location to this very spot??

64657

Oh come on... thats a completely different kind of flying altogether... :rolleyes: :happy204:

Banzai240

11-05-2005, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by snowmann@Nov 5 2005, 03:57 AM
Oh come on... thats a completely different kind of flying altogether... :rolleyes: :happy204:

64658

Yah... the battery is a very heavy object that happens to have the added benefit of pouring out acid as well... :rolleyes: Indeed...

Joe Harlan

11-05-2005, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 5 2005, 09:33 AM
benefit of pouring out acid as well... :rolleyes: Indeed...

64677

OH yah like the 5 dollar boat box won't stop the acid... :angry: Better yet how many times I have inspected a car to find two 1/4 inch universal rods holding the whole system to the floor with the hooked end....lol

Ya'll could mandate a weight box like proracing easy to build and welded to the floor.

Banzai240

11-05-2005, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 5 2005, 06:17 PM
Better yet how many times I have inspected a car to find two 1/4 inch universal rods holding the whole system to the floor with the hooked end....lol

64679

Exactly! ;)

Worth the risk, I suppose, when it's in the name of a performance benefit... :blink:

Joe Harlan

11-05-2005, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 5 2005, 11:21 AM
Exactly! ;)

Worth the risk, I suppose, when it's in the name of a performance benefit... :blink:

64680

Haha, I found that .095 DOM tubing is good for Nitrous storage also...lol

dj10

11-05-2005, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 4 2005, 10:41 PM
Guys,

This isn't even an issue... The rules EXPLICITLY allow you to reinforce the area where the ballast is to be placed, so all this safety stuff is BS... The rules mandate how it must be mounted, and there are cars in Production and GT that carry 200+ lbs all the time...

I made ballast for my car from 1/2" x 3" x 12" steel plate... Added 140lbs and it took up less space as a shoe box... Here is a pic of the passenger side... You can see the mount just in front of the fire-bottle:

http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/SCCA/240SX_Ballast_Plate.JPG

At one time, when running Radial Sedan, I had 140lbs of ballast bolted to that plate.... I'll have to go out an measure it again, but the bolts I needed were not that long... This plate happens to have 4-nuts attached to it, so you can use up to 4-bolts if you like... and you could use multiple mounting positions to spread the load...

The point is that all this safety stuff is unwarranted... the ballast can be as safely mounted as YOU want it to be...

64657

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the weight ONLY to be added to the foot well area only in IT classes?
dj

mlytle

11-05-2005, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 5 2005, 07:20 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the weight ONLY to be added to the foot well area only in IT classes?
dj

64682

ahh, that is what I thought too. passenger side footwell. footwell does not include the area under where a seat would go or use of the seat mounting points. did the rules change or is the car pictured illegal in it?

Banzai240

11-05-2005, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by mlytle@Nov 5 2005, 07:56 PM
ahh, that is what I thought too. passenger side footwell. footwell does not include the area under where a seat would go or use of the seat mounting points. did the rules change or is the car pictured illegal in it?

64683

You guys are right... The ITAC recommended in the early part of the year that the area be opened up to include the seat area as well... I'm working right now to verify that this is going to happen for 2006...

I'll let you know what I come up with...

Luckily for me... my car doesn't need any ballast, or it'd be illegally mounted! :unsure:

Joe Harlan

11-05-2005, 04:28 PM

Again completely missing the point. The weight box could be welded to the car in the footwell with out much effort. :023:

dj10

11-05-2005, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 5 2005, 03:28 PM
Again completely missing the point. The weight box could be welded to the car in the footwell with out much effort. :023:

64687

I'm not an engineer, but common sense tells me that 150 to 200 lbs is entirely to much weight for such a small area.
dj

Geo

11-05-2005, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by dj10@Nov 5 2005, 03:38 PM
I'm not an engineer, but common sense tells me that 150 to 200 lbs is entirely to much weight for such a small area.
dj

64688

Hmmm.....

How big a plate did you use on the floor of your car to weld the cage tubes to?

My point is, if you're worried about mounting a 200 lb ballast box (full) to the floor with reinforced mounts, you probably ought to be worried about your cage mounts because if your car gets upside down, there will be a LOT more weight bearing down on the floorpan than 200 lbs.

dj10

11-05-2005, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 5 2005, 04:00 PM
Hmmm.....

How big a plate did you use on the floor of your car to weld the cage tubes to?

My point is, if you're worried about mounting a 200 lb ballast box (full) to the floor with reinforced mounts, you probably ought to be worried about your cage mounts because if your car gets upside down, there will be a LOT more weight bearing down on the floorpan than 200 lbs.

64690

8 different places are use for the cage. All I would want is a larger area than the floor plan still using the same side of the car. Give me the area from the back seat (where it meets the floor) to the floor pan. Don't just stick me with this weight in the floor pan.
dj

lateapex911

11-05-2005, 07:28 PM

I was under the impression that the relaxed location rule had hit the GCR. I think that the area from the passenger seat footwell to the area under the seat will be the approved location.

Regarding the cage locations, while the cage may actually bear on 8 points, (and two don't count,!) if the car was inverted, the weight isn't going to be dispersed equally among the 6 remaining....or even the 4 main points, AND the weight will be significanly more than 200 or so pounds!

Honestly, I'm not an engineer either, but I do have some common sense, and this weight excuse is a huge red herring. There are dozens of ways to mount the weight. Can you define the term "Backing washer"? Do you think a tech official will not approve your car if it's too large? Not round? Welded to the floor and into some surrounding reinforced area?

Is a competitor going to protest it if the structure you fab to mount the weight to is stout?

Obviously, lets not start welding U channels like I have seen on some Rx-7s running the length of the floor, (for "jacking convenience"), but a reasonable reinforcement is appropriate.

Joe Harlan

11-05-2005, 07:46 PM

common sense, and this weight excuse is a huge red herring

Haha, should be pretty clear common sense ain't so common.....

dj10

11-05-2005, 10:20 PM

[quote]
I was under the impression that the relaxed location rule had hit the GCR. I think that the area from the passenger seat footwell to the area under the seat will be the approved location.

I sure hope you are right. Securing the weight isn't the problem. Securing it in a small space would be.
If you are correct and I hope you are the area described should be fine. If you have a link to that changed GCR/ fastrac I'd sure like to see it.
Thanks
dj

Joe Harlan

11-06-2005, 06:35 PM

Securing it in a small space would be.

I guess that's why I get the big bucks....No job is impossible if you want to do it.

ddewhurst

11-07-2005, 09:10 PM

***Luckily for me... my car doesn't need any ballast, or it'd be illegally mounted***

I agree Darin & the "admitted weight mounting frame" mounted to the area under the passenger seat is also illegal. :D :D :D

Banzai240

11-07-2005, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Nov 8 2005, 01:10 AM
***Luckily for me... my car doesn't need any ballast, or it'd be illegally mounted***

I agree Darin & the "admitted weight mounting frame" mounted to the area under the passenger seat is also illegal. :D :D :D

64834

Not for long... the 2006 rule book isn't out yet... ;) On sale at bookstands near you in early 2006... :P

Ron Earp

11-07-2005, 10:11 PM

Come on guys, it isn't hard to safely mount weight. Need a lot? Cut 1/2 steel plates into a shape that fits in the right area and bolt/weld it into the car - it won't move and it won't go anywhere. Besides, you won't need to add so much weight of you don't take it all out of the car in the first place - the cars are fairly heavy and you can simply leave some stuff in the car.

ddewhurst

11-08-2005, 11:01 AM

I agree a common sense amount of weight can be added to a car. BUT, when the car weight is 2380# & sometimes it weighs in at the track at 2360# that will be 240# when the ITAC moves the car at 2600 to ITB. Before anyone asks, yes I have viewed 220# of weight bolted to a car. The weigh was spread in places other than the front passenger foot well.

That my friends is not common sense. (ITAC members included)

That in my humble judgement is an ongoing SAFETY issue just waiting to fly around. :bash_1_: When is the last time a ITAC/CRB members looked at a car that had been totaled BIG TIME. The metal TEARS & the spot welds RIP apart. Friken spot welds & thin sheet metal are not ment to RIGIDLY mount a BIG 240# BLOB of metal to for the purpose the ITAC is implementing.

There were comments before Adam Mally sold his original Honda that the floor pans were comming apart after he received his continious rewards.

That is RISK that should not be allowed within the SCCA rules. Talk about the SCCA puting rules in place with liability issues. Guess I need to e-mail Matt & get his take on the issue. :P

Joe Harlan

11-08-2005, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Nov 8 2005, 08:01 AM
I agree a common sense amount of weight can be added to a car. BUT, when the car weight is 2380# & sometimes it weighs in at the track at 2360# that will be 240# when the ITAC moves the car at 2600 to ITB. Before anyone asks, yes I have viewed 220# of weight bolted to a car. The weigh was spread in places other than the front passenger foot well.

That my friends is not common sense. (ITAC members included)

That in my humble judgement is an ongoing SAFETY issue just waiting to fly around. :bash_1_: When is the last time a ITAC/CRB members looked at a car that had been totaled BIG TIME. The metal TEARS & the spot welds RIP apart. Friken spot welds & thin sheet metal are not ment to RIGIDLY mount a BIG 240# BLOB of metal to for the purpose the ITAC is implementing.

There were comments before Adam Mally sold his original Honda that the floor pans were comming apart after he received his continious rewards.

That is RISK that should not be allowed within the SCCA rules. Talk about the SCCA puting rules in place with liability issues. Guess I need to e-mail Matt & get his take on the issue. :P

64898

Bet I could get the car up to weight in a safe safe fashion. This is one of the rules that you could use to an advantage or spend alot of time arguing tht it's not safe. The are many many cars running around with that much ballast added to them. Think very stiff safe cage. If thecage is built right it will be low well placed weight.

Banzai240

11-08-2005, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Nov 8 2005, 03:01 PM
The weigh was spread in places other than the front passenger foot well.

The metal TEARS & the spot welds RIP apart. Friken spot welds & thin sheet metal are not ment to RIGIDLY mount a BIG 240# BLOB of metal to for the purpose the ITAC is implementing.

64898

I will contend that there are many "240# BLOBs" out there riding around in their Kirky's that are simply bolted through the "thin sheet metal" floors, all for the purpose of getting their weight lower in the car and perhaps back a little... Or at least there were before they were required to attach the seat back to the cage...

I've seen MANY racers who bypass the stock seat mounting pads and simply drill through the floorboards, etc...

The point is that the installation can be as safe as YOU want to make it...

If "thin sheet metal" is your concern... reinforce it... it's within the rules... expressly allowed, I might add, to do so...

As for the location, I've said it here several times now... we have proposed that the location be opened up to include the seating area, and I am working to get that in the 2006 ITCS... That area is more than enough to hold all the ballast we may need to add, if the person building the car uses their head and installs it with safety in mind...

Production does it, GT does it, World Challenge does it... NASCAR does it... Go-Karts do it... Every form of racing deals with ballast.

Use your head and follow the rules and their shouldn't be a problem...

Bill Miller

11-08-2005, 12:47 PM

Use your head and follow the rules and their shouldn't be a problem

But Darin, by your own admission, you're running an illegal ballast box in your car.

Joe Harlan

11-08-2005, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 8 2005, 09:47 AM
But Darin, by your own admission, you're running an illegal ballast box in your car.

64908

Yeah Darin you dirty nasty cheater, I think you admited that you used that box for weight to run RS. I think we now use that box for our radio box (fully legal) so it is now a non issue..... :023:

I will contend that there are many "240# BLOBs" out there riding around in their Kirky's that are simply bolted through the "thin sheet metal" floors, all for the purpose of getting their weight lower in the car and perhaps back a little... Or at least there were before they were required to attach the seat back to the cage...

Hey I resemble that remark and i am very offended by your lack of PC use of overweight people. The fact that I will never have to install ballast in my car should not be held against me..... :blink:

Banzai240

11-08-2005, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 8 2005, 04:47 PM
But Darin, by your own admission, you're running an illegal ballast box in your car.

64908

Is it a ballast box if it's not carrying ballast??

What does this have to do with "safety" and installing ballast?

As for my "illegal ballast box"... Please, by all means protest me... :D I think the irony would be great... imagine, getting protested for an empty, "illegal" ballast box location, in a car that's 100lbs over the minimum weight without ballast! Could you really do that with a straight face??? :blink: I'd love to be there if you do... ;)

Seriously, If I had to run ballast, I would have relocate the box fwd in the legal area... Of course, then I'd move it back after the ballast rules are ammended...

But let's not take the focus off of the topic at hand here... Even if the ballast WERE installed where I have it, at least it would be a SAFE installation... (not advocating breaking the rules, just trying to make a statement...)

Just like with battery location, this ballast vs. safety issue is a red-herring...

Banzai240

11-08-2005, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 8 2005, 05:10 PM
Hey I resemble that remark and i am very offended by your lack of PC use of overweight people. The fact that I will never have to install ballast in my car should not be held against me..... :blink:

64914

Dude... I'm rapidly approaching that myself!

No offense intended! :P

ddewhurst

11-08-2005, 09:56 PM

Joe, many of us are real creative........... ;) Placing the extra 240 pounds ain't an issue. The issue is having the RX-7 moved to ITB with the extra weight & the 6 inch wheels. Several top drivers with top preped cars want the 1st gen RX-7 left in ITA. That also includes some of us who are not the best of the best want the car left in ITA. Many of those who want to be moved to ITB will still NEVER WIN anyway. (Ya know what they say Joe, the job ain't finished untill the paper work is sent. Is it sent ? ;) )

Darin, the soap box seems to be getting taller. Please don't fall off. If you & I raced in the same IT class at the same track I would protest your illegal ballast box to make a point to an ITAC member. If ya want to be part of the rules making group ya should be ultra legal & not even talk about YOUR known illegal stuff on an open forum. :o

EDIT: Darin, why did you not pay any respect to my point of comments of Adam Malley's continious rewards weight breaking the spot welds in his original Honda floor pan ?

Also some information you are obviously not aware of is that there is a world of difference between a 240# blob driver & a 240# blob of metal attached to a floor pan. Please think about the subject & if you don't understand ask your fellow ITAC members. Or ask Joe........ ;) Also in Production all the weight is not mounted to or required to be mounted to the passenger seat & foot area. IIRC Production dose not spec where the weight SHALL be. Only a dumb a$$ would attach weight to the floorpan of a Kart.

Geo

11-09-2005, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by ddewhurst+Nov 8 2005, 08:56 PM-->
Darin, the soap box seems to be getting taller. Please don't fall off. If you & I raced in the same IT class at the same track I would protest your illegal ballast box to make a point to an ITAC member. If ya want to be part of the rules making group ya should be ultra legal & not even talk about YOUR known illegal stuff on an open forum. :o
[/b]

David, me thinks thou doth protest too much....

If the box is empty, is it really a ballast box? You would lose.

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Nov 8 2005, 08:56 PM
Also some information you are obviously not aware of is that there is a world of difference between a 240# blob driver & a 240# blob of metal attached to a floor pan.

Only if you're ham-fisted at attaching the ballast. Darin is right, this is a red herring.

<!--QuoteBegin-ddewhurst@Nov 8 2005, 08:56 PM
Only a dumb a$$ would attach weight to the floorpan of a Kart.

You don't know what you're talking about. Hell, you'll find a lot of ballast attached to the seat of a kart. Have you ever raced karts?

Z3_GoCar

11-09-2005, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 8 2005, 09:34 PM
David, me thinks thou doth protest too much....

If the box is empty, is it really a ballast box? You would lose.
Only if you're ham-fisted at attaching the ballast. Darin is right, this is a red herring.
You don't know what you're talking about. Hell, you'll find a lot of ballast attached to the seat of a kart. Have you ever raced karts?

64976

Joey Hand raced Karts. I remember at a race in San Jose his Kart had 10lb lead blocks bolted to the floor pan. Weight balance is more important in a Kart. Sure you can put it in a weight can behind the seat, that'll get you left and right weights even, but what about fore-aft and overall weight?

James

lateapex911

11-09-2005, 01:25 AM

David, is this the thread to campaign about the RX-7 to or not to B?

Maybe a new thread is in order....

To the matter at hand..(sort of..)

Seriously, this whole "safety" issue, and "liability" commentary is lame. It's just not that hard.....you're allowed to mount it as you see fit...so mount it so it won't rip out!

Did the rewards weight rip out of the Honda you are talking about?? Or you suspect it would in a big incident?

And the question that is more to the point, HOW was it mounted?

Banzai240

11-09-2005, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Nov 9 2005, 01:56 AM
If ya want to be part of the rules making group ya should be ultra legal & not even talk about YOUR known illegal stuff on an open forum. :o

Please think about the subject & if you don't understand ask your fellow ITAC members. Or ask Joe........ ;) Also in Production all the weight is not mounted to or required to be mounted to the passenger seat & foot area. IIRC Production dose not spec where the weight SHALL be. Only a dumb a$$ would attach weight to the floorpan of a Kart.

64966

Hey David, don't drown in that self-rightiousness... Please, Protest away... I'm sure tech would LOVE the chuckle...

I've explained myself enough times that I feel my fellow competitors will understand the ballast box position in this car and can live with it... NOT that it matters... I'm with George... You'd lose...

There is, after all, NO rule that defines the location of a "bracket" such as this, only the ballast itself, and since I don't run any ballast, which would be necessary to have it in an illegal location, then I think I'll pass tech just fine... I'll strap my tire-guage to it and make it a guage mount, or fasten my radio to it, etc... Seriously, give me a break! Please, tear me down... I'm all for it!

And WHERE did you get the idea that the 7 is going to ITB??? We've proposed no such thing, not officially anyhow... Only participated here in various discussions on the matter...

If it were to happen at all, and I'm not certain that it will or would... It'll be in a dual-classification scheme, where we leave it alone in ITA and make another classification for ITB... Then you'll have a choice... I think that's the only way we could get such a thing approved... (maybe I'm wrong... maybe we'll see...)

So again, save your self-indignation for someone else... It's wasted here...

Maybe you admitting that mounting this much weight can't be done is only revealing your own shortcomings...

I would have no trouble doing it safely and securely... and within the rules...

Joe Harlan

11-09-2005, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Nov 8 2005, 06:56 PM
Joe, many of us are real creative........... ;) Placing the extra 240 pounds ain't an issue. The issue is having the RX-7 moved to ITB with the extra weight & the 6 inch wheels. Several top drivers with top preped cars want the 1st gen RX-7 left in ITA. That also includes some of us who are not the best of the best want the car left in ITA. Many of those who want to be moved to ITB will still NEVER WIN anyway. (Ya know what they say Joe, the job ain't finished untill the paper work is sent. Is it sent ? ;) )

Darin, the soap box seems to be getting taller. Please don't fall off. If you & I raced in the same IT class at the same track I would protest your illegal ballast box to make a point to an ITAC member. If ya want to be part of the rules making group ya should be ultra legal & not even talk about YOUR known illegal stuff on an open forum. :o

EDIT: Darin, why did you not pay any respect to my point of comments of Adam Malley's continious rewards weight breaking the spot welds in his original Honda floor pan ?

Also some information you are obviously not aware of is that there is a world of difference between a 240# blob driver & a 240# blob of metal attached to a floor pan. Please think about the subject & if you don't understand ask your fellow ITAC members. Or ask Joe........ ;) Also in Production all the weight is not mounted to or required to be mounted to the passenger seat & foot area. IIRC Production dose not spec where the weight SHALL be. Only a dumb a$$ would attach weight to the floorpan of a Kart.

64966

Dave dude don't bust my chops. I have not gotten to it. It is on my deask to be done. Man Sorry but life gets in the way. I put out a lot of effort to get the car too ya. You will get the paperwork believe me.
Now I am all for the car being classed in both places at the same time....so there. :023:

Now leave the freaking radio box mount alone this is just petty BS and an ITAC member is no more pure than a regular member. Trust me there is nothing pure about Darin after all the nudie clubs I have dragged him too all these years. Take a chill pill my good friend, life is looking good.

Geo, David has raced karts and know a bit of what he speaks. I would not mount ballest to the floor pan on my kart either but thats A: because its aluminum and B cause I am too fat to need it. B)

Geo

11-09-2005, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Nov 9 2005, 12:12 AM
Joey Hand raced Karts. I remember at a race in San Jose his Kart had 10lb lead blocks bolted to the floor pan. Weight balance is more important in a Kart. Sure you can put it in a weight can behind the seat, that'll get you left and right weights even, but what about fore-aft and overall weight?

James

64982

I raced karts for 8 years. There is a lot you can do with weight and seat position will affect weight balance more than anything.

Geo

11-09-2005, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 9 2005, 02:31 AM
Geo, David has raced karts and know a bit of what he speaks. I would not mount ballest to the floor pan on my kart either but thats A: because its aluminum and B cause I am too fat to need it. B)

64991

I wouldn't have any problem with mounting ballast to the floor pan of a kart. Like ballast in an IT car, it all depends upon how you do it.

ddewhurst

11-09-2005, 10:18 PM

Geo & James, next time your at a Kart track please take a picture or two of a Top Guy Karter with weight attached to the alum floor pan. I don't need to throw names around when it comes to Karting. I raced at the local level, at the WKA Regional level & at the WKA National level. If I were to throw a name around it would be the name of my son who was for several years a Top Gun Karter with the WKA at the National level & he set up Karts for Top Gun Karters at WKA & IKF National level races. Nuff said by me about Karting. ;)

Darin, I could care less what you & George have to say about your admitted illegal empty ballast box. There is no friken rule that says you are allowed to have an addmitted illegal empty ballast box. You got the point but you always need to play the self-rightiousness (your word) card. Did ya learn that from Bill ? Sorry Bill...... ;)

Jake, it's always fun to chat with you & Joe. That's because the two of you don't play the self-rightiousness card. Joe deservingly so busted my chops because I requested some paper work. I can live with a good poke. :119:

On the other hand with respect to your comment about classing the 1st ge RX-7 I will campaing on any thread where the subject comes up or I think the subject is appropriate. (One of the items I threw out some time back was to allow the 1st gen RX-7 to be classed in ITA & ITB & to allow the owner to place the car in the class of the owners choice. Apparently the ITAC also had the same idea. Joe, more than one of us had the same idea. :023: :023: :023: )

Both you & I know the SCCA rules are written to place any blame/fault on the SCCA member who installed the weight. Let's be proactive with the amount of weight which may need to be installed & let's not wait untill someone installs 240 pounds & has the weight come loose when the person takes a wild end over end & gets KILLED. My bet would be that from the get go no one had intentions of installing 240 pounds of floorpan weight.

EDIT: :bash_1_:

Previous to year 2005 the maximum amount of weight that could be floorpan installed in IT was 100 pounds. Then for year 2005 & beyond any number of 50 pounds chunks may be added. Yup, some folks decided that 100 pounds was the SAFE maximun amount of weight that could be added to the thin spot welded floorpan & then some wiser folks came along & said put in all the 50 pound chunks you would like. :bash_1_: I am going by the written ITCS rules previous to the 2005 GCR & the latest written ITCS rule in the 2005 GCR.

Lets be proactive & have more SHALL rules so that every Tom, Dick & Harry is forced to install to a proven fabrication practice. The weight is no different than the new two tube side protection rule. You & I both know that when we have everyone deciding what "two tubes" are there will be un-safe side protection built into IT cars. Naw, there is nothing lame about my comment about libality with this 240 pound chunk of weight installed as one pleases. In IT cars roll cage with five planes is required to keep shit out of the drivers compartment for driver protection & then the SCCA allows a 240 pound chunk of weight to be bolted to the thin spot welded sheet metal floor pan with two 1/2 inch diameter SAE bolts/nuts with large washers. Yes the rule goes on about you "MAY" reinforce & all but it don't say ya "SHALL" reinforce. The word "MAY" is the word that will allow the 240 pound chunk of weight to come loose in an end over end. Naw, the only thing lame is the rules written by the SCCA to protect the SCCA.

The rewards weight on the Honda was conversation in more than a few Production conversations at the Runoffs for a couple years. I don't have clue how it was mounted. The car is gone. That is the whole point of me being on a rant about the 240 pound weight being mounted to the rules to the thin spot welded sheet metal floor pan. Because some of the pi$$ ants in Production gave Adam about all the undeserved shit he could stand I had no desire to look over HIS car or ask him questions.

Banzai240

11-09-2005, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Nov 10 2005, 02:18 AM
There is no friken rule that says you are allowed to have an addmitted illegal empty ballast box.
65061

David,

There is no point in discussing this with you further... The cage rules aren't good enough for you... the ballast rules aren't good enough for you... the classifications aren't good enough for you... WHY do you even bother renewing you license???

If ballast was breaking away in Adam Malley's car, then he didn't have it mounted securely enough... There is little chance that we could define how to do that in a manner that would cover EVERY car, and not open the door for unintended allowances... From what I hear, people are already TAKING advantage of the reinforcing rule for questionable "reinforcing"... The bottom line is that we can NOT write rules that enforce COMMON SENSE!

Some people wake up in the morning just looking for someone to pounce on... Apparently for you it's me... I hope you feel better having gotten all that off your chest...

Joe keeps telling me that you are an alright guy... someone I'd enjoy hanging out with at the track... I'm finding that tough to believe...

I'll leave it at that...

Joe Harlan

11-09-2005, 11:49 PM

Joe keeps telling me that you are an alright guy... someone I'd enjoy hanging out with at the track... I'm finding that tough to believe...

Hey I wasn't kidding either....? You two ladies really need to understand that it has more to do with the typed word than what you are really trying to say. Unlike the prod page I try to count to 10 before bustin somebodies chops. I am sure that hanging out at the track with Geo would prove him not to be the contrarian I see him as here. Go easy dudes the IT future looks bright enough for me to consider building myself a car again.

Lets have a little less of this :bash_1_:

Ron Earp

11-09-2005, 11:55 PM

Damn fellows, why worry?

The car in street trim weighs in around 3150 to over 3300 depending on options, electric seats, etc. I've owned one, they ain't light.

If you must build a BMW at a 3150 weight then guess what? You don't have to remove as much stuff from the interior as you thought you did. And, if you did get your car down to 2600lbs etc. then you can add back in a few things you took out. Might be able to keep that passenger seat and use your car for BMW track days! Hot damn!

I find it hard to believe a bunch such as us who find serious ways to eliminate weight, move weight, make power from engines given restrictions, and extract every last ounce of performance from a POS street car can't find where to place 125,150,175,200,225 lbs. Give me a break. Weld it in a floor, put it in a tube, etc. - seems folks bend rules for power/performance but maybe they don't bend the other way? Most of us here are certainly creative when pulling stuff out or interpreting the rules, making more power, etc., well, now is your chance to shine. Get in the garage and get to work.

How 'bout we make a pact? I don't bitch about finding a 12th fessor valve for my 1974 Jensen Wheezy and you don't bitch about weight any more? Deal?