Revised ITR list in Fast Track

[Andy Bettencourt]

Couple more things to consider:

1. The split of the Z3's. Look to the weights of the 328/330 for an idea. Should be a no-brianer.

2. Celica GTS. 2380 in ITR. Curb weight of 2500 lbs. Or should it be 2750 in ITS? It was a tweener and leaked in. I think it is better as an ITR car...

3. Looks like they are considering the 'entry' level V8's...they may or may not get in I think.

4. RX-8. All accounts are that this engine is WAY maximized. Betting it hots a second wave around S2000 weight.

5. What else should be in a second wave proposal?

6. Edit - Add Dodge Stealth to Mitsu 3000GT listing...

[seckerich]

[4. RX-8. All accounts are that this engine is WAY maximized. Betting it hots a second wave around S2000 weight.

I see a light at the end of the tunnel--even if it might be a train :P The search is on for a donor.

[Ron Earp]

An RX8 would be an excellent car for ITR, no doubt. 243hp stock, or whatever Mazda said after they didn't produce the 250hp advertised? That suspension system is pretty good from what I understand.

And that GTS at the low weight will be a mighty fun car, not my cup of tea, but it'll be fun I bet. They used those in some sort of celebrity race in CA I saw on TV months back, man, those folks couldn't drive!

The eternal V8 question - I was for them in the initial proposal, but let them go since it was deemed necessary for ITR to have a chance. I don't mind if they are put in there, but they weren't part of the initial sheet submitted. They'll fit fine though and will expand the ITR ranks if the reponse in the Ford forum was correct.

Someone is going to have to do a lot of leg work on those BMW models. We put a few on there because they needed to get seeded, but there are more than we originally thought and someone needs to sort them. They belong, just need to be sorted out.

I think those 3L sixes will be the car to have in R - all of them - Z32, Supra, BMWs - I'll bet all of those motors will do well and any of those cars will be the front runners. And, the class has some "odd balls" for those that like them too, Taurus SHO anyone? Great motor in that one.

R

[its66]

Couple more things to consider:

4. RX-8. All accounts are that this engine is WAY maximized. Betting it hots a second wave around S2000 weight.
...
[/b]

SSSHHHH don't tell the wife, she might figure out that the cage in my street car wasn't really a "factory installed safety device"...

[dj10]

I have also noticed that they have kept the 8.5" wheels for ITR. So this is official?

[Knestis]

Nothing is official until the boards sign off on it...

K

[bldn10]

Steve, check your PM.

[mlytle]

Someone is going to have to do a lot of leg work on those BMW models. We put a few on there because they needed to get seeded, but there are more than we originally thought and someone needs to sort them. They belong, just need to be sorted out.


[/b]

should we just start with the bmw's that are in the list? there is some accuracy work to be done on just those. other bmw's looked at for itr, round two?

i am sure a few of us bmw folks would be happy to help sort out the bmw model stew for the itr committee. shall we?

marshall

[Fastfred92]

In sorting the BMW stuff out I think someone still needs to look at the e36 325 weight ( still too high ).... If the same hp is in a Teg type R but much lower weight what gives..... I still dont buy the 250 hp stuff... just bitching :)

[JeffYoung]

The last revision included input from Dan Jones. If any other BMW guy wants to weigh in, glad to have the information.

Fred, the 325 weight is,I think, set. Andy et. al. have run the car through the process and that is the weight that gives it ITR power to weight. And the crank hp used was not 250.

[lateapex911]

We've heard that the spec'ed weight is too heavy, AND we've heard it's too light...all from BMW guys.

Makes me think it's "just right", LOL

Oh...that and the fact that thats what the numbers say.

[mlytle]

In sorting the BMW stuff out I think someone still needs to look at the e36 325 weight ( still too high ).... If the same hp is in a Teg type R but much lower weight what gives..... I still dont buy the 250 hp stuff... just bitching :)
[/b]
weight of the e36 325 is just about right...it can't get much lower realistically due to the physical limitations of the car and the it rules. it will get tight getting to 2765 with a normal sized person, safety gear, radios, driver cooling, etc.

if the hp to weight ratio of OTHER cars is off, that is a different solution. it is interesting looking at the trends in hp/lb accross all the itr cars. all fwd cars have lower ratios than rwd cars, with the exception of the 928.

[dj10]

The last revision included input from Dan Jones. If any other BMW guy wants to weigh in, glad to have the information.

Fred, the 325 weight is,I think, set. Andy et. al. have run the car through the process and that is the weight that gives it ITR power to weight. And the crank hp used was not 250. [/b]



Jeff, I'd be happy to go over any BMW info with anyone who wants to put in their 2 cents worth. My concern is the hp/wt of some of these ITR cars. I beleive it would be prudent for the ITR committee to ensure that every car has been scurtinzed and the hp/wt ratios are correct.


Marshall did point out to me the weight (#2765 the same as the 325) of the Z3, coupled with a 2.8L 193hp engine with 206 ft lbs of torque, stock, is to light. Take a look at the numbers, this does stick out.

[Ron Earp]

all fwd cars have lower ratios than rwd cars
[/b]

It is a balancing act. Some folks wanted to get the "over S FWD cars" into R, but the fact is, they make less hp than the average R car. Therefore, one has to take weight off them to fit them into the class, but, there is a limit to how much weight you can get off the car. Specing it at a weight that is unobtainable doesn't do much good. And then, one has the somewhat subjective hp gains that could be debated to death, adders or subtractors for various things like suspension, brakes, FWD, RWD, transmission, etc.

One thing is certain, the BMW folks should be fairly happy as they'll have a lot of cars to choose from. Furthermore, as a large marquee in the class there will certainly be competitive examples of each running around when all said and done.

Once we start filling in the tech sheets we hope that folks will be stepping up to the plate to fill in the blanks. You fellows that have offered to help with the BMWs will be much utilized for sure. In fact, we should probably start getting a plan in place to assign sheets and start getting them prepped. Jeff and I are working on the 8 today to get him ready for Daytona, we'll formulate a plan.

I've got a couple of sheets I've already started filling in - man, these things take a lot of time!!!!!! It isn't a simple thing to find out what the valve guide material is in a Taurus SHO motor, that doesn't pop up in popular magazine road tests too often these days..... Those tiny spec lines in the GCR show only a fraction of the data.

Ron

[JeffYoung]

Marshall -- the fwd cars have a bit more hp/wt to account for the fact that they go off much quicker after a few laps as the front tires are doing all the work -- a phenomenon that increases with hp. I drive rwd cars and am comfortable we got this right.

Dan -- the 2.8 Z3 is the same weight as the E36 325 because (a) the Z3 has an E30 rear suspension and, if you have ever driven one on track (I have) it is an entirely different animal trying to get power down and (B) the aero is worse.

Make sense guys?

[Z3_GoCar]

Just for comparison sake, let's look how BMWCCA racing classes these cars togeather in J-Prepared

e-36 325i/is 2900lbs
e-36 325i/is 2850lbs (ITS prepared car minus the SIR restrictor)
e-36 328i/is 2995lbs
e-36/7 Z3 2.8l 2730lbs

even so, there's only been a couple of Z3's that run in BMWCCA racing. I was told by one of those guy's that at least out here even at 20lbs less than the ITR weight it's not competitive. YMMV but I'm sticking with my chassis, and I'm happy to have a place to play. I'll argue the weight issue after we've run a few years and figured out where we stand.

[mlytle]

Just for comparison sake, let's look how BMWCCA racing classes these cars togeather in J-Prepared

e-36 325i/is 2900lbs
e-36 325i/is 2850lbs (ITS prepared car minus the SIR restrictor)
e-36 328i/is 2995lbs
e-36/7 Z3 2.8l 2730lbs

even so, there's only been a couple of Z3's that run in BMWCCA racing. I was told by one of those guy's that at least out here even at 20lbs less than the ITR weight it's not competitive. YMMV but I'm sticking with my chassis, and I'm happy to have a place to play. I'll argue the weight issue after we've run a few years and figured out where we stand.
[/b]

the way bmwcca classes cars is not a very good comparo for scca it. it is done strictly by curb weight and stock hp. no adders or compensation for anything. but if you must, z3's are starting to be build in jp, and one particularly underveloped one is doing quite well. ran faster laps than me at vir.

as i said before, i raced an e30 325 in its for several years before moving to the e36. the rear suspension is not the big problem that it appears folks are making it here. i actually liked it's handling better than the e36, but the m50 engine in the e36 was just so much better than the m20 in the e30. e30 style rear harder to adjust? yes. but once you have it dialed in, it works great.

again, the z3 is classed too light in itr. needs to be at least the same weight as the 328 with the exact same engine. think about it...the z3 is a low two seat sports car..the 328 is a tall two or four door sedan. z3 has quicker steering ratio, same engine, same brakes same front suspension.

[Catch22]

In sorting the BMW stuff out I think someone still needs to look at the e36 325 weight ( still too high ).... If the same hp is in a Teg type R but much lower weight what gives..... I still dont buy the 250 hp stuff... just bitching :)
[/b]

You must be smiling when you type this because there's no way you can say these 2 cars should weigh even remotely the same.

The Integra is a 1.8 liter 4 thats extremely maxed from the factory so it isn't going to make much more power than stock (if any) in IT prep. Its torqueless (about 130lbft) and FWD.

The BMW is a 3.5 liter inline 6. Its been proven to make nice gains with IT prep, it has wheelspinning torque, and its RWD.

These two cars used to fight heads up all the time in Grand Am Cup. Guess which one was WAYYYYY lighter than the other?

[mlytle]

You must be smiling when you type this because there's no way you can say these 2 cars should weigh even remotely the same.

The Integra is a 1.8 liter 4 thats extremely maxed from the factory so it isn't going to make much more power than stock (if any) in IT prep. Its torqueless (about 130lbft) and FWD.

The BMW is a 3.5 liter inline 6. Its been proven to make nice gains with IT prep, it has wheelspinning torque, and its RWD.

These two cars used to fight heads up all the time in Grand Am Cup. Guess which one was WAYYYYY lighter than the other?
[/b]

i wish it had a 3.5 liter i6.....you meant TWO.5..... :P

[JeffYoung]

Marshall:

CD of a 1992 325is is .32

I could only find CDs for M Roadsters in a quick check: ranged from .37 to .42. The later number maybe is with the top down.

Don't fall into the trap of "it's a sports car, the aero MUST be good." It's just not true. The best CDs out there right now are the Prius and the Insight because of the effect aero has on gas mileage. A Lamborghini Countach has a .42 CD, a Ford Taurus is a lot better.

Aero advantage, by a lot, to the 325.

I suppose we can debate IRS v. other types of less advanced rear suspensions here if you would like, but I'm not going to do that. I drive a live rear axle car, and yes, it can be made to work especially on smooth surfaces. The fact remains that IRS is better. Period.

I firmly believe the Z3 weight is correct and I have no dog in the fight. I also believe the ITAC and ITR Ad Hoc folks concur.

Thanks. E-mail is [email protected] if you want to continue this discussion of line.

Jeff

[dj10]

Marshall:

CD of a 1992 325is is .32

I could only find CDs for M Roadsters in a quick check: ranged from .37 to .42. The later number maybe is with the top down.

Don't fall into the trap of "it's a sports car, the aero MUST be good." It's just not true. The best CDs out there right now are the Prius and the Insight because of the effect aero has on gas mileage. A Lamborghini Countach has a .42 CD, a Ford Taurus is a lot better.

Aero advantage, by a lot, to the 325.
Thanks. E-mail is [email protected] if you want to continue this discussion of line.

Jeff [/b]



Jeff, I guess I'll go 1st. Your going to keep weight of a 2.8L the same as a 2.5L because of the CD?? We aren't talking F1, Champ or nascar here were talking about cars where the CD might be effective maybe 10% of the time during a race. If this is the case you have to figure them using someone to draft then using the torque of the 2.8L to pass the guy at the last turn. I'm not a areo space engineer, I was a pilot and I could get a plane to take off @ 55mph, but I do believe the CD may only have effects at speeds over 100 mph. I ask you why Chet never use a splitter on the nose of his BMW and still turned in the 1.39's @ RA? I may be wrong but if I remember right either did Rob Huffmaster have a splitter. Why? I understand sustained speeds of over 125 mph, but please this is IT. This is not a reason to keep a torque monster to a low weight. IMO :D



Repectfully submitted

[JeffYoung]

Respectful reply:

1. I could argue that subjective on track performance like you mention is not what we should be discussing when trying to set "objective" weights. But I'll say this -- I drive an "open top" car. I can 100% tell you with absolute assurance that the open top KILLS my car about 100-110 mph, in other words, at end of the long straights at VIR, Road Atlanta, Charlotte and CMP. I've run nose to tail with Steve Echerich's RX7 (a stout one) up through the end of 4th gear and then watched him pull me 8-10 car lengths over the last 1/8 of the straight -- due to aero.

The lack of the splitter on Chet's car MIGHT be due to the fact that it creates more drag, and hence is car is faster (and has a lower CD) without it. Lots of folks tack on huge spoilers and splitters thinking they reduce drag but if not well thought out, they do not.

Aero matters. The 325 has a significant aero advantage over the Z3.

2. What is the difference again between the 2.8 and the 2.5 in torque? 20 ft. lbs? That is significant, I agree, but I think the aero and differences in rear suspension will compensate for it. Getting that extra torque down with trailing arms over curbs, bumps, etc. will be much harder in the Z car.

Guys, I firmly believe this to be the case: the ITR 325 will be as fast and probably faster than the Z3. And, again respectfully, I've seen nothing in the posts above to convince me otherwise.

However, Ron and I are just peons in this whole enterprise. We did the grunt work to start with, and the ITR a hoc and then ITAC confirmed the weights. If you guys truly believe the numbers to be wrong, you don't need to convince me. Write a well thought out, fact-based letter to the ITAC on it and see what happens. However again, understand that what I wrote above is I think pretty close to their thinking and you'll need to do some serious convincing to get it changed. However a third time, with the new PCA language in the ITCS, after initial classification, if someone goes out and whups up on the field in a 2.8 Z3, then there a mechanism to change its weight. I doubt it will happen (the whupping up), but if it does, it can be fixed.

Jeff

[Z3_GoCar]

My friends experience in J-stock was that the shorter wheel base made for a lot of wasted motion. I guess he had a hard time as the sedans would just drive around him as he was fighting to keep the car pointed straight long enough to get power down. I imagine that Jeff knows of what I speak.

James

[dj10]

Respectful reply:

if someone goes out and whups up on the field in a 2.8 Z3, then there a mechanism to change its weight. I doubt it will happen (the whupping up), but if it does, it can be fixed.

Jeff [/b]



Jeff, I do believe that a splitter used with a wing can make a difference, but in IT, no wings allowed. :D I do feel more comfortable know there is a mechanism in place to make some changes as long as we don't have to wait a long time to make the change. I've said what I felt I had to say.

James good luck on your Z3 project.

Dan

[Z3_GoCar]

Thanks Dan,

Maybe we'll have to meet in the middle and race where neither of us has before, just to gauge how the two chassis stack up against each other.

[Ron Earp]

I think it is best to see how it pans out and moves on from here. To me it is painfully apparent that the SIRs failed and further adjustments will be done with weight. With R getting a lot of air time I'm sure that adjustments will be made if a car is speced incorrectly.

R will be a tough class, even for BMWs. There is some serious hp potential in a lot of the cars, as well as good chassis/brake/suspension packages. As long as folks are realistic with expectations on competition adjustments I think all will be well.

Ron

[JeffYoung]

Dan, thanks. Let's see how it pans out. The cars are less than 100 lbs different in weight right now. I know at least one class winning car in the SEDiv that is more than 100 lbs over its race weight -- so I think the difference will be far more driver dependent than the 100 lbs. But we'll see.

Jeff

[lateapex911]

At 3000 pounds, 100 pounds is what, about 3%???

I have to think that most of my laps have 3 corners where I have made slight mistakes that are more than 1% off....;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Current version of the BMW list looks like this: Seem ok? Should teh Z3's get a small break due to the E30 rear suspension or is that compensated for with the 'nimbleness' a shorter wheelbase may provide? I think there should be a difference but putting a number on it is hard.

325 2765
328 2850
330 3290
M3 2700 (E30)
Z3 2850 (2.8)
Z3 3290 (3.0)

Still looking for imput. Jeff and I think there should be a difference. What say the Bimmer guys?

The FWD car DO have a slightly lower weight given the drivetrain layout. It amkes sense and is part of the process. Disagree with it fundamentaly if you want (as some have in letters) but it is the way the current committees see it.

[mlytle]

up front, itr will be cool class and the effort put forth by all to make it happen is even cooler!

that said, starting with a clean slate is a great opportunity to get things as close to "right" up front as possible

comments like,
"itr will be tough class for the xxx cars, there are other cars with some serious hp potential"
and
"a diff of 100lbs can be easily overcome with driver skill"

are scary. if we think a car has massive hp potential, then that potential should be accomodated in the initial classing if possible, not found out in two years. driver capability should not even be discussed in the same thread with car classification. if someone is doing well 100lbs over min, imagine what they could do if they were at min? 20, 30, 50 lbs DOES make a difference in equal prepared cars with equal drivers. if it didn't, we might as well start rounding all car weights up to the nearest 100lbs..

getting into the nits of the classing discussion like what we are doing with the z3 is exactly what we should be doing. lets hash it out in the open so that we all understand the process and the inputs....and hence make the output better..i hope!

we all need to be "advanage neutral" and openly discuss percieved plusses and minuses to cars we are familiar with so next year we can have 10 different cars fighting for that checker.

lets not "settle" and rely on pca's to fix later what we can fix now. some great work has been done to get us this close. lets get busy with some 'nitpicking" to bring the class spec that final mile!

i am fairly familiar with bmw's so i started the picking on the z3 2.8. some points were made that it actually does have a little areo disadvantage, so i vote to give it a 25lb break off the 328 weight of 2850. 2825.

anyone see any other cars that appear too fast or slow?

marshall
can't wait for 07!!

[Ron Earp]

i am fairly familiar with bmw's so i started the picking on the z3 2.8. some points were made that it actually does have a little areo disadvantage, so i vote to give it a 25lb break off the 328 weight of 2850. 2825.

anyone see any other cars that appear too fast or slow?

marshall
can't wait for 07!!
[/b]

Seriously, I don't think the classing process has a resolution of 25lbs. And, I don't think you could bring any number of standard statisticaly tests to bear that would prove you right - or wrong. Sorry, I think that is simply too subjective and lost in the noise.

Ron

[Z3_GoCar]

I would argue that the rear suspension is in fact more of a hindrance because of the short wheel base. Also the M50 intake is much better than the M52 or M54 units, why else whould there be a market for M50 intake swaps? I say split the difference 2800lbs, with the option of 2700lbs if it can't keep up no matter what. My friend was addament that it's NOT competitive in J-Stock last year, did they also adjust the weight down last winter? I'd not seen him in any of the results this year and the last event of last year he was driving a 328. Now how much of a lack of endorcement of the chassis is there than to switch out.

James

[Ron Earp]

Fellows, fellows, we haven't even turned lap one in ITR yet. :P

As a side note - BMW Club racers do realize that J-Prepared isn't IT prep trim, right? I saw some comments in the BMW Club Footnotes magazine from last year that made me think there was little, if any, distinction to BMW Club racers. Throttle bodies and intakes are not free in IT. Neither are cams and cam duration. And a few other things like engine mounts, tranny mounts, etc.

Ron

[Fastfred92]

Ron, JP and ITS are different but the reason for the confusion is that ITS cars are placed within the JP class at BMWCR. They run the IT weights and I think have been allowed to run without the FPR or SIR. A real full prepped JP car, however, will blow away a ITS car. It will be interesting to see if BMWCR keeps ITR e36 325 in the JP subclass.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Marshall,
You are on point with your comments. The weights are being set to TRY and hit the ground running with a level playing field. Many factors are taken into account but the facts remain that some cars will make more power than others and need to weigh more. The front drivers get a little reduction due to weight distribution and layout.
The ITAC voted last night to recommend to the CRB the following on the BMW's:
325 2765
328 2850
330 3290
M3 2700 (E30)
Z3 2800 (2.8)
Z3 3240 (3.0)
And - as a bonus for all the anti-ITR Bimmer guys - the ITAC also recommended that all ITS cars that are classed in ITR get a dual classification. Hopefully the CRB will go that way.

[robits325is]

Marshall,
You are on point with your comments. The weights are being set to TRY and hit the ground running with a level playing field. Many factors are taken into account but the facts remain that some cars will make more power than others and need to weigh more. The front drivers get a little reduction due to weight distribution and layout.
The ITAC voted last night to recommend to the CRB the following on the BMW's:
325 2765
328 2850
330 3290
M3 2700 (E30)
Z3 2800 (2.8)
Z3 3240 (3.0)
And - as a bonus for all the anti-ITR Bimmer guys - the ITAC also recommended that all ITS cars that are classed in ITR get a dual classification. Hopefully the CRB will go that way.
[/b]

Is the 328 a E-46 or a E-36?

[BMW RACER]

Guys.

Does the Z3 include the coupe?

That could be interesting.

[mlytle]

I would argue that the rear suspension is in fact more of a hindrance because of the short wheel base. Also the M50 intake is much better than the M52 or M54 units, why else whould there be a market for M50 intake swaps? I say split the difference 2800lbs, with the option of 2700lbs if it can't keep up no matter what. My friend was addament that it's NOT competitive in J-Stock last year, did they also adjust the weight down last winter? I'd not seen him in any of the results this year and the last event of last year he was driving a 328. Now how much of a lack of endorcement of the chassis is there than to switch out.

James
[/b]

we need to stop comparing to bmwcca results. bmwcca "stock" and "prepared" classes are both radically different than improved touring. stock is seriously limited in what you can do compared to scca, and prepared is way beyond what you can do in scca. results there have zero bearing on scca racing.

marshall
well aware of the differences between scca and bmwcca





Fellows, fellows, we haven't even turned lap one in ITR yet. :P

As a side note - BMW Club racers do realize that J-Prepared isn't IT prep trim, right? I saw some comments in the BMW Club Footnotes magazine from last year that made me think there was little, if any, distinction to BMW Club racers. Throttle bodies and intakes are not free in IT. Neither are cams and cam duration. And a few other things like engine mounts, tranny mounts, etc.

Ron
[/b]

it actually pretty funny sometimes on the bmwclubracing list. there are prepared racers that appear truly scared of the potential of scca it cars! even though bmwcca prepared rules allow big wheels, big brakes, hot cams, big injectors, wings, splitters, etc..

[Knestis]

... And - as a bonus for all the anti-ITR Bimmer guys - the ITAC also recommended that all ITS cars that are classed in ITR get a dual classification. Hopefully the CRB will go that way.

[/b]

Argh.

My curmudgeon crystal ball tells me that's a decision we are going to live to regret. That's a policy decision - and a pretty huge conceptual departure from the norm in IT - that's been made to satisfy a tiny, pissed-off constituency. If we think that it doesn't set a precedent, we're wrong and we best be prepared to live with it.

Can I run my 325is in both S and R in the same season (switching wheels, etc. of course)? Is there any reason I HAVE to run in "official" R spec to enter? Can I do both on the same weekend? Can two different drivers? Do I need two logbooks, one for each class? Can I get my Golf be listed in ITC, too but at a higher weight because I'm having trouble getting it to its B minimum weight? It would be good for C since entries are kind of thin. I could decide which class I want to run depending on where the good (or weak) racing is. Can I qualify for the SIC in two classes with the same car?

"Hey, Kirk - why are there cars out there that look identical but are in different classes? That seems really stupid..."

K

[mlytle]

Seriously, I don't think the classing process has a resolution of 25lbs. And, I don't think you could bring any number of standard statisticaly tests to bear that would prove you right - or wrong. Sorry, I think that is simply too subjective and lost in the noise.

Ron
[/b]
car weights seem to be in -5- lb increments on the list...so classing is already operating at well under a 25lb resolution. yes it is subjective to a great extent. that is why were are having this discussion. other wise we would be rounding to the nearest hundred...or thousand.. :D

[mlytle]

Marshall,
You are on point with your comments. The weights are being set to TRY and hit the ground running with a level playing field. Many factors are taken into account but the facts remain that some cars will make more power than others and need to weigh more. The front drivers get a little reduction due to weight distribution and layout.
The ITAC voted last night to recommend to the CRB the following on the BMW's:
325 2765
328 2850
330 3290
M3 2700 (E30)
Z3 2800 (2.8)
Z3 3240 (3.0)
And - as a bonus for all the anti-ITR Bimmer guys - the ITAC also recommended that all ITS cars that are classed in ITR get a dual classification. Hopefully the CRB will go that way.
[/b]

yeee haa! gotta love bonuses!!! :lol:

should be interesting to see if any e30 m3's show up. i assume we are classifing them with the stock 2.3l. most of them have been stroked to 2.5l by now.

[Z3_GoCar]

we need to stop comparing to bmwcca results. bmwcca "stock" and "prepared" classes are both radically different than improved touring. stock is seriously limited in what you can do compared to scca, and prepared is way beyond what you can do in scca. results there have zero bearing on scca racing.

marshall
well aware of the differences between scca and bmwcca
it actually pretty funny sometimes on the bmwclubracing list. there are prepared racers that appear truly scared of the potential of scca it cars! even though bmwcca prepared rules allow big wheels, big brakes, hot cams, big injectors, wings, splitters, etc..
[/b]

There's a good reason to compaire that's to eliminate the unknown factor, the fact that no 2.8l has been prepared for IT, no Z3 has had to compete with this level of hp and torque. What better way to see what works and get a ball park than to compaire the known (e-36 325) with the unknown? Who cares if the prep rules are different?? The over all effect should be the same. I suspect that given the dirth of Z3's competing in either J-Stock or J-Prepared indicate that the 328 in either the e-36 or e-46 versions is a much more potent chassis/engine combination. However, say that 2800lbs, is still too much and my car's never competitve at that weight. Say I can't get out of the way of the ITS field fast enough, what then?? Do I get someone else to confirm that I give up x.xx seconds per lap, what's my options then?? :dead_horse:

Marshall,

They're afraid of the exhaust headers, open Motec ecu's, and spherical suspension bushings are going to kick their a :o :o

James

[Ron Earp]

marshall
well aware of the differences between scca and bmwcca
it actually pretty funny sometimes on the bmwclubracing list. there are prepared racers that appear truly scared of the potential of scca it cars! even though bmwcca prepared rules allow big wheels, big brakes, hot cams, big injectors, wings, splitters, etc..
[/b]

Maybe they are scared of the potential of SCCA drivers.......

You know the difference between JP and IT, and I know the difference, but I'm not sure JP drivers know the difference. At least, the Footnotes magazine we get in the SE writes from time to time of JP drivers crossing over and showing the SCCA boys how it is done, or eluding to that fact. That could be an issue in ITR if it attracts a large BMW group of Preppared rules drivers wanting another place to run their car from time to time. And if not checked carefully could lead to BMWs being a "problem child" in R. Just thinking aloud here and hoping nothing like that happens.


R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob,
328 is the E36 and that one year of E46 328ci.

Kirk,
It does set precident - and one that the CRB doesn't seem to upset about. Other cars have th epotential for dual classification but VERY few will get status.

The Z3 will include both vert and coupe.

[robits325is]

Rob,
328 is the E36 and that one year of E46 328ci.

[/b]

The E-36 328i sedan ended production in 1998 The 328is coupe ended in 1999.
The E-46 328i was a 1999 or 2000 model year car. The E-46 328ci was released in 2000 and was replaced in 2001 by a 330ci.

The ITR list includes 96-99 328i.
and 00-04 330i

Maybe someone needs to clarify.

[its325]

can someone explain why we NEED another class of cars?? SOory im behind the times on this one. Another land of misfit toys class? I give up. :wacko:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob,
What change would make other than the addition of the 2000 E46 328Ci and the 1999 to 2000 E46 328i which I am working on now?

ITS325,
The 'business case' surrounding the addition of ITR has been documented here and in Fast Track. As usual, people take posts from those who don't sign their name very lightly.

[MIKEGTR]

i don't know maybe because many folks enjoy the IT race philosophy.... and also enjoy going a bit faster than the current IT classes. Instead of cramming more cars into ITS, with more restrictions for specific car models, to the point that it will be called Improved World Challenge.... there is evidence to sutain the need for a new IT class. So what if there are three guys racing in that class for a year... this is NOT nascar where you actually have to cut a field down... sooner or later it will fall into place... Change is inevitable... consider that this is for the better...
and embrace it!
If ur E36 is not competitive in ITS... tough... maybe u'll have luck in ITR.... SCCA makes no guarantees on competitiveness... and being a BMW racer you should know that(read the fast track of how many people want adjustments made to BMW) and opening a class like ITR confirms the philosophy to provide you with racing room... i learned that the hard way with my ITA car, not competitive at all... so just get ready to race no matter what if you find urself midpack with ITS cars even though u are in ITR well then you'll be racing with people you already know...

just my .02cents

Mike

[JeffYoung]

ITS325 -- you could start by actually reading what was written in Fastrack.

But I'll say it again here for your benefit.

IT is aging. Right now, there is simply no place to classify cars with more than 190 stock crank horsepower. Take a look around you -- how many cars in the last 15 years had less than that? Not many, and certainly not many sports or sporty cars.

A class above ITS is a necessity for the continued health and growth of IT. For years, people have asked to classify 3.0 BMWs, the E30 M3, the Z32 300ZX, the Supra and countless other cars. They have been told that those cars have too much potential for ITS, and the CRB was right in making that call.

ITR opens the door to the wide variety of cars from the last 15 years that have 190+ stock hp and which have no place in IT to run. Preludes, RSXs, Maximas, A4s, 3.0 BMWs, etc. Within a year, it will probably also include V8 pony cars to give SCCA members an "entry level" V8 class. Take a look at the list yourself. Is it a listing of "misfit toys?"

You really need to do some reading and thinking before posting stuff like you have.

I suspect that ITR will start slowly, populated primarily by 325is, Integras, Preludes, and a few otehrs that are already built. But in a couple of years, I think it will be the dominate IT class.

The buzz I've seen in the paddock this year about ITR has been fantastic.

So, again, not sure where you are coming from at all.

[lateapex911]

I'm following Kirks advice...he's rarely wrong...(Don't feed the trolls) and keep my mouth shut for once, LOL....

[mlytle]

Maybe they are scared of the potential of SCCA drivers.......

You know the difference between JP and IT, and I know the difference, but I'm not sure JP drivers know the difference. At least, the Footnotes magazine we get in the SE writes from time to time of JP drivers crossing over and showing the SCCA boys how it is done, or eluding to that fact. That could be an issue in ITR if it attracts a large BMW group of Preppared rules drivers wanting another place to run their car from time to time. And if not checked carefully could lead to BMWs being a "problem child" in R. Just thinking aloud here and hoping nothing like that happens.
R
[/b]

hopefully any jp'er trying to run their car in itr will stick out like a ricer at a 50's drive-in.... :D all the wings, big chrome wheels and painted brembo stuff kinda stands out! :023:

[mlytle]

There's a good reason to compaire that's to eliminate the unknown factor, the fact that no 2.8l has been prepared for IT, no Z3 has had to compete with this level of hp and torque. What better way to see what works and get a ball park than to compaire the known (e-36 325) with the unknown? Who cares if the prep rules are different?? The over all effect should be the same. I suspect that given the dirth of Z3's competing in either J-Stock or J-Prepared indicate that the 328 in either the e-36 or e-46 versions is a much more potent chassis/engine combination. However, say that 2800lbs, is still too much and my car's never competitve at that weight. Say I can't get out of the way of the ITS field fast enough, what then?? Do I get someone else to confirm that I give up x.xx seconds per lap, what's my options then?? :dead_horse:


[/b]
and what "level of hp" are you refering too? bmw stock class can't do anything to engine or suspension, so no useful comparison there. prepared allows some internal engine changes which it doesn't, so that level of hp isn't a good comparison either. a prepared version of the 2.5l puts about 20hp to the ground more than an IT version. extrapolate at will for a 2.8l.

the dirth of 2.8l's in bmwcca is temporary. ya can't change the ecu out to a motec in bmwcca, so the 2.8's are stuck with the odbii challenge. the tuners are figuring out...the 2.8's are filling in..both z3 and 328 form.

everybody should care the prep rules are different....apples to apples is what we are looking to make decisions on. :dead_horse:



The E-36 328i sedan ended production in 1998 The 328is coupe ended in 1999.
The E-46 328i was a 1999 or 2000 model year car. The E-46 328ci was released in 2000 and was replaced in 2001 by a 330ci.

The ITR list includes 96-99 328i.
and 00-04 330i

Maybe someone needs to clarify.
[/b]

good data rob.

the e36 and e46 328's are different cars and need different classification lines and weights

[Andy Bettencourt]

the e36 and e46 328's are different cars and need different classification lines and weights [/b]

Here is what I have now. Anything missing?

BMW 325i/is (92-95)
BMW E36 328i/328is (96-98)
BMW E46 328ci (00)
BMW E46 328i (99-00)
BMW 330i (00-02)
BMW 635 (83-84)
BMW M3 (88-91)
BMW Z3 2.8 (97-00) Coupe or roadster
BMW Z3 3.0 (01) Coupe or roadster

What weight differnce would you recommend for E36 328 and E46 328? The same 50lbs that we used for Z3 to E36 difference? So, given the same engine, the Z3 would be 50lbs lighter than the E36 and the E36 would be 50lbs lighter than the E46...what sounds right to you BMW guys?

[mlytle]

Here is what I have now. Anything missing?

BMW 325i/is (92-95)
BMW E36 328i/328is (96-98)
BMW E46 328ci (00)
BMW E46 328i (99-00)
BMW 330i (00-02)
BMW 635 (83-84)
BMW M3 (88-91)
BMW Z3 2.8 (97-00) Coupe or roadster
BMW Z3 3.0 (01) Coupe or roadster

What weight differnce would you recommend for E36 328 and E46 328? The same 50lbs that we used for Z3 to E36 difference? So, given the same engine, the Z3 would be 50lbs lighter than the E36 and the E36 would be 50lbs lighter than the E46...what sounds right to you BMW guys?
[/b]

will have to do some checking. the e46 328 uses the same bigger brakes that the e46 330 does ...i think,so the difference could be a bit more than just 50lbs. i know the e36 325 and e46 323/325 share brake parts. the e46 chassis is considerably stiffer than the e36 (before roll cage..), the rear suspension is slightly different and the body style has a different cd. sounds like the discussion we just had with the z3..sort of... :lol:

i'll try to investigate and get back.

bmw unfortunately has quite a quagmire of 3 series model variations between 96 and 02. there was also an e36 323 for 1998-9 and of course the e46 323 through 2001 and the e46 325 in 2002. the 323's used an odbii version of the 2.5l. suggest we don't try to class too many of the variations right off the bat. one of them is already classed in its.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Then an additional listing would be:

BMW E46 325i/ci coupe (02)

In total:

BMW 325i/is (92-95)
BMW E36 328i/328is (96-98)
BMW E46 325i/ci coupe (02)
BMW E46 328ci (00)
BMW E46 328i (99-00)
BMW 330i (00-02)
BMW 635 (83-84)
BMW M3 (88-91)
BMW Z3 2.8 (97-00) Coupe or roadster
BMW Z3 3.0 (01) Coupe or roadster

[robits325is]

Here is what I have now. Anything missing?

BMW 325i/is (92-95)
BMW E36 328i/328is (96-99)
BMW E46 328ci (00)
BMW E46 328i (99-00)
BMW 330i (01-02)
BMW 635 (83-84)
BMW M3 (88-91)
BMW Z3 2.8 (97-00) Coupe or roadster
BMW Z3 3.0 (01) Coupe or roadster

What weight differnce would you recommend for E36 328 and E46 328? The same 50lbs that we used for Z3 to E36 difference? So, given the same engine, the Z3 would be 50lbs lighter than the E36 and the E36 would be 50lbs lighter than the E46...what sounds right to you BMW guys?
[/b]

I bolded the changes.





Then an additional listing would be:

BMW E46 325i/ci coupe (01)

In total:

BMW 325i/is (92-95)
BMW E36 328i/328is (96-98)
BMW E46 325i/ci coupe (02)
BMW E46 328ci (00)
BMW E46 328i (99-00)
BMW 330i (00-02)
BMW 635 (83-84)
BMW M3 (88-91)
BMW Z3 2.8 (97-00) Coupe or roadster
BMW Z3 3.0 (01) Coupe or roadster
[/b]

325ci was released in 2001. Feels like we are playing a BMW model trivia.

[Andy Bettencourt]

BMW 325i/is (92-95)
BMW E36 328i/328is (96-99)
BMW E46 325i/ci coupe (01-02)
BMW E46 328ci (00)
BMW E46 328i (99-00)
BMW 330i (01-02)
BMW 635 (83-84)
BMW M3 (88-91)
BMW Z3 2.8 (97-00) Coupe or roadster
BMW Z3 3.0 (01) Coupe or roadster

Sooo many models! Different chassis in the same year!!! Sweet jesus!

[Z3_GoCar]

and what "level of hp" are you refering too? bmw stock class can't do anything to engine or suspension, so no useful comparison there. prepared allows some internal engine changes which it doesn't, so that level of hp isn't a good comparison either. a prepared version of the 2.5l puts about 20hp to the ground more than an IT version. extrapolate at will for a 2.8l.

the dirth of 2.8l's in bmwcca is temporary. ya can't change the ecu out to a motec in bmwcca, so the 2.8's are stuck with the odbii challenge. the tuners are figuring out...the 2.8's are filling in..both z3 and 328 form.

[/b]

I would argue for a roughly linear interpolation, in reality Prepared is probably into the point of diminishing returns with limits to stock intake and exhaust manifolds. In reality, if we use both the Stock and Prepared data, bracket the IT data in the middle, we've got a trend for the m-52 2.5 to follow, with one unknown point, how a 2.8l will respond to IT prep. Sound like a plan?? Good! Now all we need is good accurate data on how the cars respond. I wonder where we can find that?? I can plot it in excel if you like.

Second is how the chassis respond to being prepared, same method as with the power plant, only this is a little more subjective and the data harder to come by(as if we have a non-subjective way of measuring chassis responce) Actually, from the world of aircraft dynamics and controls there is (if my memory serves the Cooper-Harding scale) a method of ranking stability and control. Sounds like a good basis for a formula SAE paper. This will also help take out the subjective nature of the adders as they are currently applied. This could be broken down into two parts, the go part (50% of the total) and the stop/handeling part( also 50
%)... I'll get back with some numbers.

James


James

[Z3_GoCar]

will have to do some checking. the e46 328 uses the same bigger brakes that the e46 330 does ...i think,so the difference could be a bit more than just 50lbs. i know the e36 325 and e46 323/325 share brake parts. the e46 chassis is considerably stiffer than the e36 (before roll cage..), the rear suspension is slightly different and the body style has a different cd. sounds like the discussion we just had with the z3..sort of... :lol:

i'll try to investigate and get back.

bmw unfortunately has quite a quagmire of 3 series model variations between 96 and 02. there was also an e36 323 for 1998-9 and of course the e46 323 through 2001 and the e46 325 in 2002. the 323's used an odbii version of the 2.5l. suggest we don't try to class too many of the variations right off the bat. one of them is already classed in its.
[/b]

As a side note all the six cylinder Z3's use the brakes for the e-36 328 and don't have the upsized brakes of the e-46 328/330. So the weight increase shouldn't follow the e-46 330 in case you were wondering.

Also, don't forget that classing any 98 with a 99 or 00 results in the fact that intake variable cam control can be swapped with both cams being controlable, and a different intake manifold. Just so you know.

[JoshS]

The Z3 3.0 was also available as a 2002 model. That was the last year for Z3s.

[JeffYoung]

To the BMW guys -- thanks for the help and info. Much appreciated.

[dj10]

To keep thing simple just list the BMW's we need more data on. This would be less confusing and lets get to work. :D

[Andy Bettencourt]

DJ,

Check this out. I am not sure we want to micro-micro manage these weights (like 'slightly bigger brakes' on this X) but recommendations are accepted where you think we are off...

BMW 325i/is (92-95) 2765
BMW E36 328i/328is (96-99) 2850
BMW E46 325i/ci coupe (01-02) 2765
BMW E46 328ci (00) 2900
BMW E46 328i (99-00) 2900
BMW 330i (01-02) 3290
BMW 635 (83-84) 2925
BMW M3 (88-91) 2700
BMW Z3 2.8 (97-00) Coupe or roadster 2800
BMW Z3 3.0 (01-02) Coupe or roadster 3240

Boy it's gonna be hard to police these things...

For description:

E30 rear is -50 from E36 rear. E46 is + 50 from E36 rear. E46 325's may look light but make slightly less power than E36 versions.

Keep the commentary coming! Time is running out for a final list.

[Knestis]

The voices in my head continue to be anxious about some of how this is shaking out on the ground. For the zillionth time, please, please, PLEASE don't let on-track performance - or perceptions of potential on-track performance - creep into the process.

If the rationale at this point for a 50# hit is "that windshield angle is going to give it an advantage," then the door is wide open for "Hey - it's not faster, we got the windshield adder wrong, let's make it 50# lighter."

The point was made earlier (or elsewhere, nearby) that the fact that weights are set in 25# increments is evidence that we think the system is accurate to +/- 25#. FWIW, I agree with that interpretation - but NOT that the system IS that tight.

The list of "adders" and "subtractors" has gotten longer in the last 18 months, seems like, and they are getting added and subtracted a lot in the ITR planning. These start to feel like little, baby competition adjustments (bleah) based on the conversation and rationale being applied.

Please don't let them grow up and reproduce.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Don't worry Kirk. That is not what is happening. ITR is rare in that we get to start from scratch. We get to not only get to run everything through the process, but we get to do what we think is right for the cars in question. These considerations might be a little minute when you look at the other classes, but we have never had the luxury we have here.

It really isn't that different from what we do now, we just have the ability to get things a little closer to 'right' before they get locked down.

[dj10]

DJ,

E46 325's may look light but make slightly less power than E36 versions.

Keep the commentary coming! Time is running out for a final list. [/b]



Hmmmmmm I have a E46 325 as well as my E36. From where I'm at they make the same only the E46 is stiffer and has double vanos. My call would be for 2800#. I'd like maybe Marshall to comment either to me or here on the site. I'd listen to James too.

[Z3_GoCar]

Hmmmmmm I have a E46 325 as well as my E36. From where I'm at they make the same only the E46 is stiffer and has double vanos. My call would be for 2800#. I'd like maybe Marshall to comment either to me or here on the site. I'd listen to James too.
[/b]

Hey Dan,

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

All I want is for my car to be properly classed. Not an overdog, and not so far behind that I have no hope of keeping up.

The M-52TU and M-54 have dual adjustable cams where both the intake and exhaust are computer adjustable, and a dual plenum intake manifold. These motors are both tuned for less hp and more torque, so given a Motec type system a larger than usuall hp gain my be possible, with a little creative programming.

Also as a side note, the 3.0 liter motors have electric throttles. There's no direct throttle linkage, just a spring and rheostat, wires into and out of the computer and an electric actuator. I believe that this isn't acceptable to the GCR's in that the throttle must have a positive return spring and defective wiring may result in a fully open throttle. World Challenge gets around this by spec'ing the replacement of the throttle assembly with the assembly from the 2.5 liter. Do I hear the first spec line exception? :rolleyes:

[JoshS]

Also as a side note, the 3.0 liter motors have electric throttles. There's no direct throttle linkage, just a spring and rheostat, wires into and out of the computer and an electric actuator. I believe that this isn't acceptable to the GCR's in that the throttle must have a positive return spring and defective wiring may result in a fully open throttle. World Challenge gets around this by spec'ing the replacement of the throttle assembly with the assembly from the 2.5 liter. Do I hear the first spec line exception? :rolleyes:[/b]Lots of cars currently running in Showroom Stock and Touring have electronic throttles, without any special exceptions on their spec lines.

This year in Seattle, the little plastic throttle stop in my Subaru STi broke, allowing the electronic throttle pedal to travel about 1/8" more than it normally can. This caused the computer to get confused about the pedal, and the car basically went into limp mode, fixing the throttle at 6% open. At 6%, I couldn't get up the hill on the back side of the track, and had to just pull over and wait for a tow.

I'd rather have a mechanical throttle, but I guess my point is, the GCR doesn't seem to disallow these cars, or at least, we're all somehow getting logbooks despite the requirement you cite.

[dj10]

The M-52TU and M-54 have dual adjustable cams where both the intake and exhaust are computer adjustable, and a dual plenum intake manifold. These motors are both tuned for less hp and more torque, so given a Motec type system a larger than usuall hp gain my be possible, with a little creative programming.

Also as a side note, the 3.0 liter motors have electric throttles. There's no direct throttle linkage, just a spring and rheostat, wires into and out of the computer and an electric actuator. I believe that this isn't acceptable to the GCR's in that the throttle must have a positive return spring and defective wiring may result in a fully open throttle. World Challenge gets around this by spec'ing the replacement of the throttle assembly with the assembly from the 2.5 liter. Do I hear the first spec line exception? :rolleyes: [/b]



Thanks James great post and certaintly somethings the ITAC should consider. What is the difference between a 323/ 328 throttle body & the 2.5 throttle body? I know the manifold is identical for the 323 & 328 (smaller than the 2.5).

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey Dan,

Thought I should revisit this thread, and saw your question.

I'll look into the part numbers for the TB's on the 23(really a 2.5 liter) and the 28. My suspicion is that they're the same.

The reason I was revisiting this thread is that my car had the ecm dyno-tuned today. We did like about 10 runs before I made the final choice on the program. We did the tunning on a dynapac, and without giving the exact numbers, lets just say I'm somewhere around stock flywheel hp numbers, now at the wheel. Also my torque peak is at 4800rpm, and it's a definitly a peak. What'll make my car fast won't be the power alone, it scaled to sub-2300lbs empty. Also remember I've got several IT non-compliant parts and assemblies, like no AFM, S-52 cams, and a stand-alone without even the stock motor harness. Now granted my standalone was current in the late 90's, it's practically historic today.

I need to give props to Kevin MacDonald for sending me to Richard Clewett at Clewett Engineering, to Richard for changing out the ecm chip so that my TECII was programable on the fly, and then doing a great job of optimizing the programming, and finally to Mike Haddad at Haddad Motorsports for his expertise on running the dyno. I also got an annual tech from Chris Welch at Bullet Motorsports Speedlab for my race in two weeks. Chris got me all lined up on what the car and I will need. All in all today was too much fun. Tomorrow I'm out for a test day at Buttonwillow.

[944s2racer]

Hi,

This is my first post here. I have a 944S2 which sometime back I saw listed among the cars considered for ITR. Where do I go to see the latest on the ITR development? Also, is there any information on allowed preparation for ITR? My car is prepared as a PCA F car which allows coilover and aftermarket a-arms among others. I know these modeifications were not allowed in GCR for early 944s running in ITS.

Thank you

[JoshS]

This is my first post here. I have a 944S2 which sometime back I saw listed among the cars considered for ITR. Where do I go to see the latest on the ITR development? Also, is there any information on allowed preparation for ITR? My car is prepared as a PCA F car which allows coilover and aftermarket a-arms among others. I know these modeifications were not allowed in GCR for early 944s running in ITS.
[/b]

ITR is still in the proposal stage, although we expect to see that it has been approved when the next Fastrack comes out on the 20th of September.

The proposal has the same preparation rules for ITR as for ITS, except for larger wheels than ITS.

[lateapex911]

Hey- I was on the ITR ad hoc group that kind of spawned the idea and presented it to the ITAC. And I'm on the ITAC. Right now we are about 4 days away from the official announcement in Fastrack, but I feel VERY strongly that ITR is a go for next year. The recent Fastracks have posted the list of cars and weights. I THINK the 944s2 is in the sub 2800 range.

Interestingly, I also have a 944S2, and I bought it last spring when I decided to gamble on ITR becoming a reality.

The ITR rules will be exactly the same as the prep rules for the rest of IT. The exceptions will be wheel width (8.5 max width, I think) and of course vehicle weight is set to ensure close competition.

Unfortunatley, marque clubs deal with very specific situations, and their solutions tend to backfire in multi marque racing, so the rules package between PCA and IT has some differences. That said, we hope that ITR proves to be a great chance to get some great cars on the track more often than is possible in PCA racing, as the SCCA sanctions more events...

Take a read through the book, and see what you think.

[dj10]

Hey- I was on the ITR ad hoc group that kind of spawned the idea and presented it to the ITAC. And I'm on the ITAC. Right now we are about 4 days away from the official announcement in Fastrack, but I feel VERY strongly that ITR is a go for next year. The recent Fastracks have posted the list of cars and weights. I THINK the 944s2 is in the sub 2800 range.

Interestingly, I also have a 944S2, and I bought it last spring when I decided to gamble on ITR becoming a reality.

The ITR rules will be exactly the same as the prep rules for the rest of IT. The exceptions will be wheel width (8.5 max width, I think) and of course vehicle weight is set to ensure close competition.

Unfortunatley, marque clubs deal with very specific situations, and their solutions tend to backfire in multi marque racing, so the rules package between PCA and IT has some differences. That said, we hope that ITR proves to be a great chance to get some great cars on the track more often than is possible in PCA racing, as the SCCA sanctions more events...

Take a read through the book, and see what you think. [/b]



Jake, I'm a little worried about less and less track time with more and more groups coming out. You have any thoughts on this?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jake, I'm a little worried about less and less track time with more and more groups coming out. You have any thoughts on this?

[/b]

My thought is that you will only get less track time if these groups fill up. If they fill up, it's a good thing for SCCA. ITR can certainly run with ITS until it warrents it's own space.

[mlytle]

My thought is that you will only get less track time if these groups fill up. If they fill up, it's a good thing for SCCA. ITR can certainly run with ITS until it warrents it's own space.
[/b]

for wdcr, all the run groups are already pretty full. i won't really be about less track time, it will be about how to jam yet another class into an already full race weekend sked. should be an interesting comp committee meeting this winter when we try to sort this our for the marrs events.

[dj10]

My thought is that you will only get less track time if these groups fill up. If they fill up, it's a good thing for SCCA. ITR can certainly run with ITS until it warrents it's own space.

[/b]



Not only if they fill up but like on Sat. a VW rolled on the 1st lap of qualifying and we ended up with 2 or 3 laps for the whole qualifying session. Group 6 had a 6 lap race! Just something to keep in mind. More isn't always necessary better. Why not put the historical events with the vintage?

[lateapex911]

Dan, you fell victim to two things:

The glens conservative rules and the issues with a long track,
and

The regions desire to ensure the event made money.

Historic run groups are a regions way of making the entry count higher, and it protects them from losses.

But when things go haywire, and you're at the glen, and the region has sold lots of entries, there is little room for schedule adjustment. So somebody loses.

The Glen also, (Hard to believe with all of 3 cows within a mile of the place) has noise curfews, so there is a definate end to the available time. And add the fact that the Glen would rather rent to:

The Porsche club
or the BMW club,
or any driver ed club,
....or host a NASCAR event,

and it becomes apparent why it can be a real crapshoot for us SCCA types as to whether we actually get full races in when we're there, more than at any other track.

[Jiveslug]

Ok, my turn to chime in here. I think ITR looks pretty good so far, but I do see one vehicle that has been thrown in the mix that probably should not. That car would be the MKIII Toyota Supra. Granted, it is a 3.0 inline 6 with 200hp stock, but that engine is pretty maxed out. I have done a lot of research on these cars as a potential ITS racer, and I have discovered that getting one to make 230hp at the flywheel is tough. The guys out there who are doing that are the ones who are swapping out cams and the like. In addition, the mass of the car makes the sub 3000lb. spec weight hard to hit. These things weigh 3500lbs from the factory. Granted, they have a LOT of luxury junk to remove, but you would have to be able to pull 700-800 lbs off the thing in order to get it close, once you add in the driver and safety gear. I know that the thing has a good suspension set-up and aeros, but I really think that it is not going to be able to make up for the power deficiency. I would say leave it in ITS and even bring the weight down to 3250 in that class.

Just my thoughts...

[Bill Miller]

How come that car didn't get dual classification when all the other ex-ITS cars did???

[Racefreak24]

You all are making me want to strip and install a cage in my RX-8 and say forget the ITS probe.......well if the mazda was paid off......

[ed325its]

New Question... Thoughts and propsed weight for inclusion of the 2000+ Golf/Jetta VR6? I haven't seen it listed.

[Knestis]

I think the VR fits in S...?

K

[ed325its]

I will admit I do not know alot about the VR6 line. The +99 MY VR6 is an ITS car, but I believe the 2000+ has more HP and is quoted at 200hp stock. I would think these later versions of the VR6 would be an ITR candidate.

[Bill Miller]

I will admit I do not know alot about the VR6 line. The +99 MY VR6 is an ITS car, but I believe the 2000+ has more HP and is quoted at 200hp stock. I would think these later versions of the VR6 would be an ITR candidate.
[/b]


I believe the &#39;00 car is a 24v version, while the <&#39;00 ones are 12v versions.

[Fastfred92]

I believe the &#39;00 car is a 24v version, while the <&#39;00 ones are 12v versions.
[/b]


I think 2003 is the first year of the 24 valve VR6 here in the US.

[Ron Earp]

JiveSlug, the Supra that is in R has 222 hp stock and can make more. It&#39;ll be one of the strongest cars in S for sure - good brakes, great motor, and good handling. The Supra you are thinking of is in S. And, it&#39;ll make good power too in IT trim. No, there aren&#39;t bolt ons that make 20hp like the tuner crowd likes, which is why it gets a bad name. But it is an air pump - work it over in IT trim, i.e. build the motor .040 over, 0.5 compresion, etc. and she&#39;ll do pretty well.

R

[BudMan]

Wow - I think I know more about BMWs than I thought was possible.

I guess I&#39;m the only slug with an ITR that will be running in ITR. I really don&#39;t care about the weight at this point. It will be a bit refreshing not to be running against Vipers, ex-World Challenge, and other 400+hp American Iron participants in ITE.

I can&#39;t wait until the first event in 2007! Thanks for all who have worked on this process.