ITR on Speedtv.com

[planet6racing]

http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/scca/28071/

[orlando_wrx]

Yea for the media, putting pressure on the modernization of club racing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yea for the media, putting pressure on the modernization of club racing. [/b]

Except it was written BY SCCA Communications...let's call it 'internal pressure' :)

[JamesB]

the fact that SCCA actually has something on the AP wire is amazing. I am happy to see it out there, and I think SCCA should be public about this. It serves more then one purpose, it brings the attention of the classes to potential new members now that they can buy that supped up 5 year old WC car and race it.

[Bill Miller]

I have to say, I'm impressed. Things seem to have come full-circle from a 'too many classes' mentality to an "let's give the people what they want" mentality.

For those of you that haven't been around that long, this stuff happened in the blink of an eye, in SCCA-time. I imagine that there are a few categories/classes out there that will be a bit nervous once they read that press release.

[Stan]

The article headlines the Club's home page, as well.

www.scca.com

[zracre]

sweet! Its about time we get some real media that at least mentions our classes and club!

[orlando_wrx]

Except it was written BY SCCA Communications...let's call it 'internal pressure' :)
[/b]

yeah, im a dumbarse, I saw it on the scca website as a press release about 2 minutes after I posted that. go easy on me :P

[lateapex911]

Cool. well it IS big news .....a pretty significant shift in attitude, and I like it!

(And yes, i know, be careful what you wish for, LOL, but as far as ITR goes, we'll be OK)

[Bildon]

>> this stuff happened in the blink of an eye, in SCCA-time.

Yup, about 2 or 3 years I think. Which for SCCA is fast. A few years back when I was trying to put together a WC effort this was a common topic in the SCCA WC Forum.

Very good news :023: A victory for touring car fans in America who perfer modern race cars to fiberglass bodies, cast iron and convertibles. I had an MG ... it aint no RSX ! :eclipsee_steering:

[tnord]

anyone who bought an ITS BWM while they were on firesale got a helluva deal.

i guess i better start planning and watching for an 06+ miata shell to build when it becomes legal for the class.

[lateapex911]

anyone who bought an ITS BWM while they were on firesale got a helluva deal.

[/b]

LOL...but the BMW guys say that ITR sucks for them as well...and that it's going to cost them like $11K to convert.....redevelopment, wheels, etc.

:rolleyes:

[Z3_GoCar]

I guess a BMW driver has to come into the class with a new car to not have an ax to grind. I wonder if there'll be any 328 drivers out there that'll come over to ITR. I was told that the reason there aren't any 328's in World Challenge was that the rules were rewritten to favor the 2.5. This included non-stock rods and pistons. So you put an IT type prep aginst a production type prep, but give the IT prep ~300cc's, then wonder which one comes out on top :o Well I'm glad that I'm going to have a class to run in with out getting run over.

James

[dj10]

LOL...but the BMW guys say that ITR sucks for them as well...and that it's going to cost them like $11K to convert.....redevelopment, wheels, etc.

:rolleyes:
[/b]



Who said that Jake? Unless we can change to larger brakes brakes? The only thing that will cost us money is the larger wheels? Again unless I missed something?

[lateapex911]

Well, I'm not at liberty to quote the letter or the source of course, but it's safe to say that the ITAC and CRB have received mostly positive response about ITR, except from BMW drivers, who have told us that they do not like the idea of being "forcefully moved" against their will, as one letter writer put it.

Others have said they would like dual classification for their cars. Interestingly, none have asked for categorical dual classification for all cars currently in ITS. And others say the car is too heavy to compete, but it can't make the weight as listed.

Yes, I found the $11,000 quote to be a bit 'stout'. He was adding all the money spent on the SIR, a new rollcage, complete engine development post SIR, all new wheels, (multiple sets) and tires, plus new spings, damper and rollbar settings and testing, (off the top of my head).

[BMW RACER]

As a BMW racer I have mixed feelings on current ITS vs ITR. In ITS I feel I know where I stand, my biggest challenge is the RX7, maybe with some remapping, changing exhaust syatem and gearing I might be able to gain back some of what I lost with the SIR deal. In ITR I don't know what I'm up against. I think the 325 will be good for a while until other cars get built and dialed in. As I've said before in IT you can try and match cars with weight and maybe SIRs but since different cars work differently you'll never really know until they hit the track. At leat with ITR I can spend money to go faster.

I do think the BMW has been jerked around a fair bit! First all the buggering around to slow the car down then one year later more buggering around to try and go faster than before. Maybe the "weennies" who took their stick and ball to go play elsewhere had the right idea. Give it a few years, see if the dust settles and then decide wether or not to come back.

Me, I'll stick with it and see how it goes.

Cheers.
John

[Knestis]

... He was adding all the money spent on the SIR, a new rollcage, complete engine development post SIR, all new wheels, (multiple sets) and tires, plus new spings, damper and rollbar settings and testing, (off the top of my head).[/b]

Oh, puh-leez - give us a freakin' break.

I REALLY hope that the CRB has learned from this lesson. They should have followed the system, given them lead when the math indicated it was appropriate, and moved on with life. Some of these folks are like dealing with junior high school kids: the more room they feel like they have to whine and negotiate, the more they will do so.

Regarding "forcefully moved," I'd argue that they should all stay in ITS with the SIR. ITR is a good idea even if it doesn't "addres the BMW question," so let it succeed. Of course, that's also the best way to guarantee that the whining minority will demand that they be moved to ITR.

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Norris, getting on with the business rather than pissing and moaning but some of these guys. Wah.

K

[lateapex911]

.........
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Norris, getting on with the business rather than pissing and moaning but some of these guys. Wah.

K
[/b]

I rarely use many of the silly smiley things, but in this case......

:035: :D :D :D :D :happy204: :happy204: :happy204: :birra:

AGREED!

[mlytle]

Who said that Jake? Unless we can change to larger brakes brakes? The only thing that will cost us money is the larger wheels? Again unless I missed something?
[/b]
only thing itr will cost of e36 325bmw's is some new vinyl and a bunch of hours spent finding things to take off the car to make it lighter. since we can't do bigger brakes, bigger wheels just mean more unsprung weight.

unless we all dump our 325's to get z3 2.8...somehow they got classed with the bigger engine at the same weight as the 325....hmmmm. hopefully that was one of the mistakes in the fastrack version of the class list.

marshall
marrs itr #64

[JeffYoung]

We are working on fixing the engine classifications on the BMW cars, but note that the Z3s have a far less sophisticated rear suspension than the E36. So, some weight compensation is appropriate.

How much more power will the 2.8 make over the 2.5? We've wondered on that one quite a bit.

What amazes me the most about this whoel situation is that, all arguing, spitting and cutting aside, the plain hard numbers show that the E36 at 2850 has a better power to weight ratio than anyother ITS car. Period. That's why rookie drivers and/or non-full prepped cars run up front. A lot of this talk from the BMW camp seems to stem from the fact that it will now take full prep/well driven efforts to run up front, whereas before the misclassification of the car created a situation where the E36 was clearly the car to have.

It's funny, as I've gotten better at this sport, and improved my car, I've raced with RX7s and 240zs and 240sxs in the back of the pack that were learning with me. Never did see a slow E36......

Will the 325 be as competitive in ITR as it is in ITS? I hope not, because that was the plan. Make it run in a place where it takes a full prep effort to run up front. And that, gentlemen, is fair -- although I agree the mess with the SIR, the timing, etc. was not. But remember, the whole reason the car ended up in that mess is because it was classed wrong from the start.

[Z3_GoCar]

only thing itr will cost of e36 325bmw's is some new vinyl and a bunch of hours spent finding things to take off the car to make it lighter. since we can't do bigger brakes, bigger wheels just mean more unsprung weight.

unless we all dump our 325's to get z3 2.8...somehow they got classed with the bigger engine at the same weight as the 325....hmmmm. hopefully that was one of the mistakes in the fastrack version of the class list.

marshall
marrs itr #64
[/b]

Hey Marshall,

Jeff right, the Z3 may be an e-36, but it's got the rear suspension of an e-30. Secondly, the inital hp is very close to the same as the m-50 2.5 single vanos. The Z3 also looses on aero and as the wheel base is shorter, it's not as stable. A friend of mine (Tom Bell) that runs a 2.8 in BMW club JP is going with a 328 sedan as all the tracks out here favor a car with more stability.



We are working on fixing the engine classifications on the BMW cars, but note that the Z3s have a far less sophisticated rear suspension than the E36. So, some weight compensation is appropriate.

How much more power will the 2.8 make over the 2.5? We've wondered on that one quite a bit.

What amazes me the most about this whoel situation is that, all arguing, spitting and cutting aside, the plain hard numbers show that the E36 at 2850 has a better power to weight ratio than anyother ITS car. Period. That's why rookie drivers and/or non-full prepped cars run up front. A lot of this talk from the BMW camp seems to stem from the fact that it will now take full prep/well driven efforts to run up front, whereas before the misclassification of the car created a situation where the E36 was clearly the car to have.

It's funny, as I've gotten better at this sport, and improved my car, I've raced with RX7s and 240zs and 240sxs in the back of the pack that were learning with me. Never did see a slow E36......

Will the 325 be as competitive in ITR as it is in ITS? I hope not, because that was the plan. Make it run in a place where it takes a full prep effort to run up front. And that, gentlemen, is fair -- although I agree the mess with the SIR, the timing, etc. was not. But remember, the whole reason the car ended up in that mess is because it was classed wrong from the start.
[/b]

Jeff,

While I don't have a dyno sheet, I've been in contact with the builder of my motor. The current set up includes the cam-shafts from a s-52, and a TEC-II stand-alone computer. The rest of the build is stock rods, crank, pistons, in other words verry IT like. With this the rear wheels dyno'ed to ~210hp, assuming 18% driveline loss that's ~240hp. The question I don't have an answer for is how much will I loose with the stock cams? One other thing that I learned was that the M-3 cams were tried in the 2.5 and resulted in a very peaky power band, whereas they were a better match for the 2.8. This build matches the specs for World Challenge circa 99-02 when e-46 328's were running. In '02 I believe that the rules were changed to enhance the power of the M54b25 2.5, with aftermarket rods, cams, solid lifters, and pistons these motors see red-lines above 8500 rpm, where as my motor will have a hard limit set at 7200 rpm with it's hydraulic cams. I suspose my car would make a great Lime Rock Special, too bad I'm on the other coast.

James

[Z3_GoCar]

.....It's funny, as I've gotten better at this sport, and improved my car, I've raced with RX7s and 240zs and 240sxs in the back of the pack that were learning with me. Never did see a slow E36......

[/b]

Hey Jeff,

That's funny 'cuse I passed a 325 during my Super School race, maybe you needed the car that I had, a worn ITB 2002. The 325, in all honesty was a street car with a cage and the driver had some HPDE's under his belt. John Norris knows well the '02 that I was driving, it's got a few trophies and is well prepared except for the soft motor. Actually, I'd like to hear John's side of some of the stories that Kevin told me, and I bet that John's got some really good Kevin stories too B)

James

[JeffYoung]

Thanks for the engine info, appreciated.

P.S. -- I passed a Viper, two actually, during my school. I RULE!

[JeffYoung]

P.S.S. -- I also got my AZZ handed to me by I think EVERY ITS car, including a very fast female, a couple of ITB Golfs and an RX2. Yes, an RX2. Coil leafs and all.

Point being, school means nothing........

[dj10]

How much more power will the 2.8 make over the 2.5? We've wondered on that one quite a bit.

[/b]



Jeff, not so much hp as torque.

[JeffYoung]

Gotcha, thanks Dan.

By the way, Dan helped provide corrected infor on the various BMW motors for ITR. Kudos and thanks to Dan for doing that for us. I get lost in all the designations, etc. Much appreciated.

[lateapex911]

I second that! And he's staying the course and deiving through the SIR thing, so double "attaboys" are in order!

[mlytle]

Hey Marshall,

Jeff right, the Z3 may be an e-36, but it's got the rear suspension of an e-30. Secondly, the inital hp is very close to the same as the m-50 2.5 single vanos. The Z3 also looses on aero and as the wheel base is shorter, it's not as stable. A friend of mine (Tom Bell) that runs a 2.8 in BMW club JP is going with a 328 sedan as all the tracks out here favor a car with more stability.
[/b]

i am very familiar with the rear suspension on a z3...i owned a couple modified e30's and raced an e30 325 in its for a couple years. it ain't that big of a difference, perf wise. shorter wheelbase isn't necessarily a disadvantage either. a z3 has better aero than an e36? while the initial hp may be close....the tq potential with 300cc's more displacement is there. that is apparently why the otherwise identical 328's are classed at more weight than the 325's. z3 2.8's should weigh the same as 328's. same engine.

i have run against z3's in bmwcca. my guess is the z3 coupe could be the car to have in the jp class.

[orlando_wrx]

Don't forget about the 330 Bimmer. ITR seems to be the class to build, can anyone say dual purpose ITR / Grand Am Cup car? Of course ITR would carry a bit more ballast.

[dj10]

i am very familiar with the rear suspension on a z3...i owned a couple modified e30's and raced an e30 325 in its for a couple years. it ain't that big of a difference, perf wise. shorter wheelbase isn't necessarily a disadvantage either. a z3 has better aero than an e36? while the initial hp may be close....the tq potential with 300cc's more displacement is there. that is apparently why the otherwise identical 328's are classed at more weight than the 325's. z3 2.8's should weigh the same as 328's. same engine.

i have run against z3's in bmwcca. my guess is the z3 coupe could be the car to have in the jp class.
[/b]



I definately have to agree with Marshall on this one. With a stock torque of 206 the Z3 potential of very high numbers should be of concern just like the 328 and 330 should be.

[gpbmw]

As a BMW racer I'll certainly welcome the ITR class. I have yet to figure out how I'm going to fit 17x8's on my 325.

As a Mazda racer I believe more RX7's will surface in ITS. It will be fun either way...


Gerald Potts
1986 Mazda RX7-ITS
1994 BMW 325 - ITR
Atlanta, GA.

[Z3_GoCar]

I definately have to agree with Marshall on this one. With a stock torque of 206 the Z3 potential of very high numbers should be of concern just like the 328 and 330 should be.
[/b]

Where the 330 will have issues will be the electric throttle. World Challenge allows the 330 to run an older 2.5l throttle plate where the cable/drivers foot opens it up instead of the computer. As this is not allowed in IT I suspect that there'll be zero hp gained from stock for a 330 as you won't be able to change anything.

James

[Zneed4speed]

If ITR is being built for old Touring cars and cars predicted too fast for ITS then why list current ITS cars there?

I finally finish my 944S, do one race, and now it's listed for ITR at an unobtainable weight.

I'll start writing my letter now.

R.L.

[lateapex911]

If ITR is being built for old Touring cars and cars predicted too fast for ITS then why list current ITS cars there?

I finally finish my 944S, do one race, and now it's listed for ITR at an unobtainable weight.

I'll start writing my letter now.

R.L.
[/b]

Don't write anything. Maybe you missed it, but the list published was in error. An early version. The 944S is slated to stay in ITS.

There are however, certain cars that are thought be not good fits in ITS. The prelude for example, is thought to have to run at an excessive weight and has tire issues and such. It will be listed in ITR, at a lighter weight, with wider wheels, which should make it faster and last longer. A win - win.

There is current discussion about creating a temporary double listing for the cars being moved up, to allow them time to make the change. Another first for IT.

The ITAC, and the CRB want the class to succeed of course, and want to make it as fair and easy as reasonably possible.

[Zneed4speed]

So the Fastrack up now is wrong?

[dj10]

As a BMW racer I'll certainly welcome the ITR class. I have yet to figure out how I'm going to fit 17x8's on my 325.

As a Mazda racer I believe more RX7's will surface in ITS. It will be fun either way...


Gerald Potts
1986 Mazda RX7-ITS
1994 BMW 325 - ITR
Atlanta, GA. [/b]



No Problem Mr. Potts, you can get 17 x 8.5" also if they allow them.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So the Fastrack up now is wrong?

[/b]

You bet. The list went through 3-4 versions. One of the first 'brainstorming' versions got published. The 944S is a perfect fit in ITS and will not be moved. Stan has asked for teh final version and we are trying to make 100% sure we have everything right before we send it.

AB

[Catch22]

On that note Andy, I just noticed an error on the Acura Integra Type R weight spec on the latest spreadsheet I have. The weight is missing the FWD adder.

You might already have a later version where that is fixed. Just wanted to make sure.

When do we start filling out the forms for the currently unclassed cars?

[Andy Bettencourt]

On that note Andy, I just noticed an error on the Acura Integra Type R weight spec on the latest spreadsheet I have. The weight is missing the FWD adder.

You might already have a later version where that is fixed. Just wanted to make sure.

When do we start filling out the forms for the currently unclassed cars?
[/b]

I have 2535...

[lateapex911]

When do we start filling out the forms for the currently unclassed cars?
[/b]

When the BoD says "GO!"...

So, maybe late August?

[Catch22]

I have 2535...
[/b]

Thats correct.
Mine says 2635, so I must not have the latest and greatest version.

[mlytle]

As a BMW racer I'll certainly welcome the ITR class. I have yet to figure out how I'm going to fit 17x8's on my 325.

As a Mazda racer I believe more RX7's will surface in ITS. It will be fun either way...
Gerald Potts
1986 Mazda RX7-ITS
1994 BMW 325 - ITR
Atlanta, GA.
[/b]
17x8's are an easy fit on an e36....but they are not REQUIRED for itr, nor may they necessarily be the fastest wheel size option for the e36.....