Teach me about ITR 325's

[ekim952522000]

I was looking at the 92-95 325i/is classed at 2765 in ITR. I am finishing up my Prelude and will be building a second car for the wife I was going to build another Honda but thought I would do some research on other options so I can make a informed decision.

A few questions

1. Are there any common problems things that break etc. for this car?

2. What size tires can fit under it in ITR

3. Why the allowance for a trunk mounted fuel cell is the sock tank in a dangerous location?

4. What to junkyard replacement motors for these run?

5. What do replacement transmission run?

6. Are final drives and LSD easily available, what is the typical cost.

7. How are the brakes on the car? I don't enjoy cars that are under braked?

8. How difficult is this car to work on? What are the ECU options?

9. Oh yeah and how are they at making weight does a 215lb guy stand a chance in this car?

10. Anything else anyone can offer?

<---Sorry for all the questions Honda guy trying to broaden his horizons.

[JoshS]

I was looking at the 92-95 325i/is classed at 2765 in ITR. I am finishing up my Prelude and will be building a second car for the wife I was going to build another Honda but thought I would do some research on other options so I can make a informed decision.

<---Sorry for all the questions Honda guy trying to broaden his horizons.

Mike, it's a good car, easy to build, easy to drive, reliable and low-maintenance. 245s will fit. Brakes are plenty capable and low-maintenance. I don't know the specifics on engine and transmission costs, but they are probably more than Honda stuff ... but you won't need them. Good stock used diffs are a few hundred, fully-built race diffs are a couple thousand. But you won't break one, so it's a one-time cost. ECU: I'm not sure about what you can do to a stock one (mine is different, it's well-programmable) but Motec works as a replacement. As for the weight, I thought this was for your wife :-)

Also, there are already-built cars for good prices out there. Mike Courtney's might even still be for sale ... it's well-built, fast, and local.

[Olson-RRT]

1. Are there any common problems things that break etc. for this car?
Yes, but the great thing is they are common and can be planned/corrected for and there are not a lot of them

2. What size tires can fit under it in ITR
Wheel width is 8.5" so a 225 would fit nicely and a 245 would as well and work with just a bit of fender rolling; stay close to the stock et38 offset

3. Why the allowance for a trunk mounted fuel cell is the sock tank in a dangerous location?
Very safe location. We kept the stock tank in our BMWCCA Mod class car as it is also mounted low and close to center.


4. What to junkyard replacement motors for these run?
A few hundred to a couple thousand, many to choose from though. You should be looking for a >94 as this is the VANOS motor which gives you variable intake valve timing

5. What do replacement transmission run?
About as much as a Valentine's day dinner with a nice bottle of wine

6. Are final drives and LSD easily available, what is the typical cost.
Good searching will net you a stock clutch pack type <$500. Many "is" models come with them

7. How are the brakes on the car? I don't enjoy cars that are under braked?
BMWs get flak for poor braking systems as they have stuck with the single piston slider type for years while recently most manufacturers are using multiple piston, fixed calipers in their performance models. Fresh fluid, well bled, rebuild kit (rubber bits and cheap) and a good choice of pads will give you a more than adequate braking system

8. How difficult is this car to work on? What are the ECU options?
Very easy and very reliable. ECU is called a DME. Believe you can use anything that fits in the stock DME box which gives you many options. As anything, depends what you want to spend and spend some time with the rules on this one.

9. Oh yeah and how are they at making weight does a 215lb guy stand a chance in this car?
Making weight is not a problem but to fully answer your question a)Not sure how good the 215lb guy in question drives and b)I thought this was for your wife!! :D

10. Anything else anyone can offer?
Lots of hard development work previous done on this chasis for you to pull from. That counts for a lot.

[ekim952522000]

Hey guys just because the car is going to be for my wife doesn't mean I won't want to drive it sometimes. Ya never know I might end up liking it better than the prelude and trade her. :D

Thanks for all the info it sounds like a solid platform.

So it sounds like I would want a 94 or 95 coupe?

[Olson-RRT]

Coupe or sedan will be equal performance. Some prefer the sedan as the B pillar ends up being about even with your shoulder so the theory is greater side impact protection. Best aspect of a good donor is no rust. Where the rear sub-frame attaches should be reinforced (many rip out) and having rust there will make this a miserable job.

[JeffYoung]

Except, unfortunately, that's illegal.

Where the rear sub-frame attaches should be reinforced (many rip out) and having rust there will make this a miserable job.

[Olson-RRT]

Except, unfortunately, that's illegal.

Where the rear sub-frame attaches should be reinforced (many rip out) and having rust there will make this a miserable job.

Not if it matches the factory repair which has been close to an outright recall for the e46. At a certain point in their production cycle, both e36 and e46 chassis had this from the factory. Rust and wear can still wreck the factory reinforcements though. Not seam welding or anything along those lines, this is installing OEM parts. I don't think this violates item 8 under Suspension Mounting Points. I would not race an e36 chassis without these parts installed.

http://rrtracing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=223

edit: Item H under 8. Body/Structure
All chassis/structural/electrical repair, if performed, shall be in concurrence with factory procedures, specifications, and dimensions. Unless specifically authorized by the manufacturer for repair or allowed by these rules, no reinforcement, i.e., seam welding, material addition, etc., is permitted.

Knew it was in there somewhere.

[Ron Earp]

Here we go again......:(

[robits325is]

Coupe or sedan will be equal performance. Some prefer the sedan as the B pillar ends up being about even with your shoulder so the theory is greater side impact protection. Best aspect of a good donor is no rust. Where the rear sub-frame attaches should be repaired (many rip out) and having rust there will make this a miserable job.

How's that.

[Olson-RRT]

How's that.

That be better :happy204:

Kinda like "may" and "shall"... Subtle yet quite different.

[JeffYoung]

Sorry Ron, I know I shouldn't start. But, this one always irked me.

Did the cars come from the fact with the reinforcement or not?

If not, illegal.

Everytime this starts, we get a BMW guy first say "you should reinforce the subframe mounts" which after being pointed out as illegal, becomes "it's just a repair."

If it never came from the factory reinforced, it's illegal. The reinforcement kit, OEM or not, is illegal. If you are repairing it back to teh way it was when it came from the factory, that is legal.

[Olson-RRT]

Sorry Ron, I know I shouldn't start. But, this one always irked me.

Did the cars come from the fact with the reinforcement or not?

If not, illegal.

Everytime this starts, we get a BMW guy first say "you should reinforce the subframe mounts" which after being pointed out as illegal, becomes "it's just a repair."

If it never came from the factory reinforced, it's illegal. The reinforcement kit, OEM or not, is illegal. If you are repairing it back to teh way it was when it came from the factory, that is legal.

Yes, they came from the factory "reinforced", the part used is intended to bring older or damaged cars to factory spec. Also see my edited post above.

[ekim952522000]

Sorry Ron, I know I shouldn't start. But, this one always irked me.

Did the cars come from the fact with the reinforcement or not?

If not, illegal.

Everytime this starts, we get a BMW guy first say "you should reinforce the subframe mounts" which after being pointed out as illegal, becomes "it's just a repair."

If it never came from the factory reinforced, it's illegal. The reinforcement kit, OEM or not, is illegal. If you are repairing it back to teh way it was when it came from the factory, that is legal.

Hmm maybe the E36 has bigger problems then I thought.

Jeff does that still apply if the factory has a recall on a car to change something? I would think that would become the new way a car is supposed to be fixed.

[JeffYoung]

This thing has been hashed out here endlessly before. I'll give you my two cents on this, take it for what it is worth.

E36s have subframe mount issues. It's something that needs to be looked at on a regular basis, and probably proactively repaired, not reinforced. This is like many cars that have a weakspot/weakness.

However, it's become a de facto standard on E36 track cars of all flavors (NASA, BMWCCA, etc.) to reinforce the rear subframe mounts -- the old "everybody does it" argument. The argument is bolstered by claims that (a) this was done by the factory as part of a recall or (b) later E36s came with the reinforcement plate from the factory.

One at a time. On the latter point, no one has ever provided evidence of a 325is E36 coming from the factory with the plate. The anecdotal evidence suggests that it was installed only on late E36 328s and M3s. Click here:

http://www.bimmerwerkz.com/forum/3-series-e36/bmw-settles-over-rear-sub-frame-48392.html

If the anecdotal evidence is true; illegal.

On the former point, apparently BMW would take a look at the subframe mount and in some cases use the reinforcement plates but if the mount was in good shape, they wouldn't touch it. So, it wasn't a true recall in the sense that ALL cars were called in and retrofitted. The argument here is that "since the factory repairs it this way, I can" but in my view the GCR doesn't allow that since the car never came from the factory that way.

So it goes. I would never protest a BMW over this, but it does irk me, especially when the safety card gets played, because by spending dollars checking the mounts and repairing them legally and correctly -- i.e. spending money -- back to stock you will be just fine.

Last, full disclosure, I started racing in 2004 at the height of the unrestricted 325is E36 dominance in ITS, and I'm still smarting from that...215 rwhp and 2850........yikes.......so I'm not entirely unbiased.

[Olson-RRT]

Again, a repair not a reinforcement; very different meaning and the wrong word used in my initial text. And as in the edit of my previous post, from the GCR:

h. All chassis/structural/electrical repair, if performed, shall be in concurrence with factory procedures, specifications, and dimensions. Unless specifically authorized by the manufacturer for repair or allowed by these rules, no reinforcement, i.e., seam welding, material addition, etc., is permitted.

Rusted/weakend/torn bit cut out, OEM repair part welded in. Does this not meet GCR section above? And keep in mind we are talking about a few sq inch flat plate replacing an existing piece of flat metal plate. The point of the repair is to better spread the load of the weld nut in the improved design to the frame where it is mounted to prevent it from ripping out along with the rear suspension. This simply allows the mounting point to operate, as designed, and does not improve performance.

So perhaps I am confused in the sense that this offers no performance improvement and meets the GCR so why all the consternation?

[Greg Amy]

Here we go again......:(

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12163

Start there.

BTW, the Autotechnica photo links on the first page no longer work. But, remember, nothing on the web ever disappears. Just add "http://web.archive.org/web/20050404233644" in front of the failed links, such as:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050404233644/http://www.autotechnicracing.com/gallery/car11

[Olson-RRT]

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12163

Start there.

BTW,

Wow. Just, wow. Seems things were wound a bit tight five years ago. Got a few replies down and couldn't deal with reading any more.

They are reinforcing the subframe itself, not the chassis mounting point. The pics in the link to the old post are not the reinforcement, or repair, I am referring to. Again, please look here to see what I am talking about:

http://rrtracing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=223


Jeff, understand where you are coming from just a *bit* more now.

[JoshS]

So I think I read through all of that, and I've known about this repair for years from the BMW forums, but I still have never seen any factory directive about its use to reinforce cars that didn't come with the reinforcement from the factory. Near as I can tell, only M3s came with it from the factory. Not the 325i, not the 328i. Those reinforcement plates are not listed as superceded parts for anything either, since they are additional parts, not replacement parts. Seems to me that someone just "figured out" that the M3 had reinforcement that the non-Ms didn't have, so it became the de-facto way to repair this problem.

So quickly, did any factory documentation ever turn up?

[Greg Amy]

Seems things were wound a bit tight five years ago.
Five years ago...? Well, I guess we've moved a lot of our tight-woundedness to the Sandbox...

Anyway...to summarize that thread, Matthew...I don't know enough about what I'm looking at to defend or contradict what you're trying to say. But, generally speaking, you can do whatever the factory did when they built the car, whatever your factory shop manual shows as an acceptable repair for the car, and whatever any technical service bulletins shows as an acceptable repair for the car.

The safest and most-legal action, of course, is to replace that whole ripped panel with a new one from the factory.

However, if at any time you perform a "repair" that deviates from original build or any of those official records, you are illegal. One thing that stuck out on that link you posted is "This is an E46 M3 Competition Package shown." Without further knowledge, that implies to me to be illegal to the IT rules.

Make it back to stock, and you're legal. Deviate from stock and you're treading on thin ice.

GA

[JeffYoung]

Matt, no problem. I do get worked up over that one, need to settle down.

I agree 100% with Greg (on rare occasion, that happens, because on rare occasion, he is right...lol....I'm kidding you Greg). He laid out precisely what you can and can't do with a repair.

I also can't tell from you link if that is a legal repair but it sure looks a hell of a lot less like illegal reinforcement than what those Autotechnic photos showed.

Time for me to move, thread got jacked.

Mike, bottom line for me is the E36 is one of those "just great" race chassis. I don't know of anyone who raced or races one that regretted it (outside of the rules crap it suffered through, and despite my believe that 215 whp in ITS it was a mess, I also felt the SIR was a debacle for the car owners). Honestly, while I like the Lude a lot and the build looks great, the E36 is probably a better base for a race car.

Have fun with both!

[benspeed]

I suppose my comment should be for a rules thread, not wholehearted support for building 325 ITR/S cars and making them safer. These bimmers are great and I've always flirted with racing one. Drove a bunch on the track and it's tops.

So to the issue on the rear subframe mount (which alone sounds terrifying to somebody not familiar). To the extent this is a safety issue where its known to fail and one of our friends and fellow racers gets hurt because they didn't make repair, know how to inspect or didn't know about the issue. Wouldn' all of us feel like shitheads?

Selfish perspective mode on - I'm now firmly in the Porsche camp and the known ball joint/control arm failure issue exists for the 944/968 cars. I know three SCCA drivers involved in serious wrecks in top cars because of this. I can't do anything for that other than the planned rotation of two sets of stock control arms and detailed inspection. What a pain in the ass that'll be!

How would you guys feel if I got hurt because despite my rigor in maintaining and inspecting the control arms and ball joints on my new 968? I'd prefer to replace the stock with arms with the aftermarket units that provide no advantage but are designed for the lowered height of a race car. That'll never happen. I do hallucinate alot but not that bad...


In my opinion fellow racers should forgiving of a known safety issue. It will be clear to a reasonable person if a competition advantage is being sought and gained. Like using fully adjustable control arms in replacment of stock....

[JeffYoung]

This is going to sound cold, but it's not meant that way.

I have intermitten complete brake caliper failures despite changing calipers 3-4 times a season. What a pain in the ass that is! Should I be allowed altenative calipers and big vented discs as a result?

The front wheel bearing on my car, outer, is maybe the size of a silver dollar. It fails. I change them pretty much every 2 weekends. I still on occasion have them fail, and I lost a hub at CMP (and all brakes as it "kicked the pads back" as the hub/rotor flailed around) and nearly went into the turn 14 wall. What a pain in the ass that is! ShouldI be allowed a better hub and bearing assembly (easily available) as a result?

My transmission routinely - every 18 months or so -- loses all gears except 5 (I break shift pins). I try to change trannies every 18 months or so, what a pain in the ass that is!

Ben, always liked your posts and look forward to meeting you, but your statements below -- what a pain in the ass maintenance is! and give me an allowance because I might get hurt -- are the precise reason we CANNOT do what you suggest.

Make your car choice knowingly. Deal with teh warts. We can all have trouble on track, and that is not a reason to give any car a "safety" allowance when pain in the ass! maintenance will resolve MOST of the safety issues.


I suppose my comment should be for a rules thread, not wholehearted support for building 325 ITR/S cars and making them safer. These bimmers are great and I've always flirted with racing one. Drove a bunch on the track and it's tops.

So to the issue on the rear subframe mount (which alone sounds terrifying to somebody not familiar). To the extent this is a safety issue where its known to fail and one of our friends and fellow racers gets hurt because they didn't make repair, know how to inspect or didn't know about the issue. Wouldn' all of us feel like shitheads?

Selfish perspective mode on - I'm now firmly in the Porsche camp and the known ball joint/control arm failure issue exists for the 944/968 cars. I know three SCCA drivers involved in serious wrecks in top cars because of this. I can't do anything for that other than the planned rotation of two sets of stock control arms and detailed inspection. What a pain in the ass that'll be!

How would you guys feel if I got hurt because despite my rigor in maintaining and inspecting the control arms and ball joints on my new 968? I'd prefer to replace the stock with arms with the aftermarket units that provide no advantage but are designed for the lowered height of a race car. That'll never happen. I do hallucinate alot but not that bad...


In my opinion fellow racers should forgiving of a known safety issue. It will be clear to a reasonable person if a competition advantage is being sought and gained. Like using fully adjustable control arms in replacment of stock....

[GKR_17]

6. Are final drives and LSD easily available, what is the typical cost.

I know of two quaifes (4.10 and 3.46 ratios) that could be had for $750 each plus shipping.

Grafton

[Spinnetti]

This is going to sound cold, but it's not meant that way.

I have intermitten complete brake caliper failures despite changing calipers 3-4 times a season. What a pain in the ass that is! Should I be allowed altenative calipers and big vented discs as a result?

The front wheel bearing on my car, outer, is maybe the size of a silver dollar. It fails. I change them pretty much every 2 weekends. I still on occasion have them fail, and I lost a hub at CMP (and all brakes as it "kicked the pads back" as the hub/rotor flailed around) and nearly went into the turn 14 wall. What a pain in the ass that is! ShouldI be allowed a better hub and bearing assembly (easily available) as a result?

My transmission routinely - every 18 months or so -- loses all gears except 5 (I break shift pins). I try to change trannies every 18 months or so, what a pain in the ass that is!

Ben, always liked your posts and look forward to meeting you, but your statements below -- what a pain in the ass maintenance is! and give me an allowance because I might get hurt -- are the precise reason we CANNOT do what you suggest.

Make your car choice knowingly. Deal with teh warts. We can all have trouble on track, and that is not a reason to give any car a "safety" allowance when pain in the ass! maintenance will resolve MOST of the safety issues.


Lol... S*&t man, you are lucky that's all driving a british car! We pays our money and takes our chances... IT is way too rule crazy.

[JLawton]

IT is way too rule crazy.


You think so??? Go onto the Prod sites. That whole thing is insane!!

It really isn't crazy, it's just that people try to twist the rules to fit their need. Yeah, there's some silly things but they're all meant to keep IT from turning into Prod.



The bottom line on the original request: The BMW is a great car. Solid, reliable, proven winner, lots of good information and lots of after market support. You won't be kicking yourself in two years becasue the car is uncompetative.




.

[Spinnetti]

You think so??? Go onto the Prod sites. That whole thing is insane!!

It really isn't crazy, it's just that people try to twist the rules to fit their need. Yeah, there's some silly things but they're all meant to keep IT from turning into Prod.



The bottom line on the original request: The BMW is a great car. Solid, reliable, proven winner, lots of good information and lots of after market support. You won't be kicking yourself in two years becasue the car is uncompetative.
.

Yeah, I'm thinking about one too actually after decades trying to stay up front with a non-front running type car. Almost seems a sellout to run what everybody else does though! I saw several comments about VANOS - is it 93 and up or 94 and up I should be looking for?

As to rules, I'm contrasting IT where people complain if a windshield washer nozzle is aimed at 5 vs. 6 degrees to the "Lemons race" where anything goes, yet somehow, the competition is still pretty even.. believe it or not, I've been finding Lemons more fun, and am doing two events this year.

[tnord]

i'd run one, i think.

before i did it i would want to find out just how long one can expect to go before the subframe mounts need to be cut out and new pieces welded in. i'd want to know what that costs, and how hard the necessary parts (OEM factory installed!!!!) are to come by. if it's reasonable, i would then move on to finding the weight/power balance i thought was best for ITR. i know the thread title says "325" but i'd look very hard at what the 328 weight is, and find out what the restriction point is in both motors. the 325 should be easier because the development has been done for ITS, but the extra displacement of the 328 might provide a torque advantage that suits your local tracks better.

my final question would be....what line of work are you in that you're building a new ITR BMW right after an ITR Prelude, and are you hiring?!

[ekim952522000]

i'd run one, i think.

before i did it i would want to find out just how long one can expect to go before the subframe mounts need to be cut out and new pieces welded in. i'd want to know what that costs, and how hard the necessary parts (OEM factory installed!!!!) are to come by. if it's reasonable, i would then move on to finding the weight/power balance i thought was best for ITR. i know the thread title says "325" but i'd look very hard at what the 328 weight is, and find out what the restriction point is in both motors. the 325 should be easier because the development has been done for ITS, but the extra displacement of the 328 might provide a torque advantage that suits your local tracks better.

my final question would be....what line of work are you in that you're building a new ITR BMW right after an ITR Prelude, and are you hiring?!

Does the 328 have the same rear subframe issue? f it does the 325 makes more sense to me if it does not then maybe the 328 is the way to go. Used version of each can be found for close to the same price.

[JoshS]

Does the 328 have the same rear subframe issue? f it does the 325 makes more sense to me if it does not then maybe the 328 is the way to go. Used version of each can be found for close to the same price.
Yes, it does. Same chassis, same issues.

The 328i has more torque but worse top-end because of a lousy intake manifold.

[mlytle]

i'd run one, i think.

before i did it i would want to find out just how long one can expect to go before the subframe mounts need to be cut out and new pieces welded in. i'd want to know what that costs, and how hard the necessary parts (OEM factory installed!!!!) are to come by. if it's reasonable, i would then move on to finding the weight/power balance i thought was best for ITR.

they don't all do this. what drives the subframe failure is not replacing bushings when they wear out. the stock bushings are rubber. when they get old they loosen up and allow the subframe to move a little. this movement gradually flexes the mounting studs at the passeger side front first. the constant flexing causes the metal in the chasisis around the stud to fail. if you get a car that shows no signs of failure and put solid/urethane bushings in, you are good to go. if the flex has started, repair is needed. the repair is the installation of the factory plates that weld on around where the mounting studs/bolts go into the chassis. the plates are readily available at any dealer or place like bimmerworld. they are cheap too, like $20. the cost comes in labor to drop the subframe and weld the plates on, if you don't do this yourself. it really isn't that hard. nor is it necessarily required.

[JoshS]

if the flex has started, repair is needed. the repair is the installation of the factory plates that weld on around where the mounting studs/bolts go into the chassis. the plates are readily available at any dealer or place like bimmerworld. they are cheap too, like $20. the cost comes in labor to drop the subframe and weld the plates on, if you don't do this yourself. it really isn't that hard. nor is it necessarily required.

Marshall, I'm genuinely curious -- what document makes this repair legal on an IT 325i?

FYI, the Z3s have a different rear suspension design altogether, but have a very similar failure. When the bushings get worn, the rear subframe moves around a lot and can basically destroy the trunk floor. It's really ugly, much uglier than the E36 failures, when it happens. However, unlike with the 3-series, there is no reinforcement available from another BMW model. There is reinforcement available in the aftermarket ... of course, that reinforcement would be totally illegal in IT.

[mlytle]

Marshall, I'm genuinely curious -- what document makes this repair legal on an IT 325i?

FYI, the Z3s have a different rear suspension design altogether, but have a very similar failure. When the bushings get worn, the rear subframe moves around a lot and can basically destroy the trunk floor. It's really ugly, much uglier than the E36 failures, when it happens. However, unlike with the 3-series, there is no reinforcement available from another BMW model. There is reinforcement available in the aftermarket ... of course, that reinforcement would be totally illegal in IT.

the 325 reinforcement is not "from another model" it is for repair of the non-m3 e36's. the m3's came from the factory with reinforcement standard..they don't need it, nor can they use it.

yep, the z3's got the suspension from the e30's. rips in a difficult place. e36's rip in a place that is easily fixable with a plate.

i gotta stop here...this is a really dead horse being kicked.

[JoshS]

the 325 reinforcement is not "from another model" it is for repair of the non-m3 e36's. the m3's came from the factory with reinforcement standard..they don't need it, nor can they use it.

I hear people saying this a lot, but I'm asking ... why does everyone believe it? Seems like it's become common knowledge with no official basis. What BMW document says that what those parts are for?

And if you do a parts search for those part numbers, they come up as M3 parts (and not any other E36).

[robits325is]

BMW starting installing these plates in 1994 with the production of the M3. The plates came standard on all M3s and also standard from the factory on the famed 1994 M Technic 325is.

[JeffYoung]

Josh's question remains a good one.

1. Where is the factory TSB authorizing the installation of these plates on an E36 325is?

2. Is there any evidence they came on an E36 325is from the factory?

If neither, then I don't see how the plates are legal.

[Andy Bettencourt]

and also standard from the factory on the famed 1994 M Technic 325is.

Which would actually be a good reason to specifically disallow this car. As it turns out, they are NOT the same as the 325's.

But in the end - who really cares? As long as the owners are 'replacing' per factory specs and not 'reinforcing' per an upgrade, it's no big deal. Each car needs to be policed on it's own merits.

[DBurke]

To the OP the E36 is likely one of the most fun cars that someone could possibly put together. All the homework is done, it will fit all the tire that you want and there are suspension options out there galore. You can even pick up almost everything you need, right now to have a car as fast as you need it to be to win the ARRC in the bimmerforums classifieds at nearly 50% off. Things that aren't there are front brake pads and tires.

The chassis reinforcements are these: http://www.turnermotorsport.com/html/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=4111225649

If I had a week I could likely find the Roundel from over 10 years ago that had a statement regarding this from BMW.

I have no dog in this hunt. I am a BMW guy but when I was ready to buy the ex KVS ITS 325 all the weight/restrictor/dyno unrest was happening so I went another direction.

If I were to consider a car for ITR I would not consider any option other than the BMWs. No need to make life that difficult to go slower.

[robits325is]

Which would actually be a good reason to specifically disallow this car. As it turns out, they are NOT the same as the 325's.

But in the end - who really cares? As long as the owners are 'replacing' per factory specs and not 'reinforcing' per an upgrade, it's no big deal. Each car needs to be policed on it's own merits.

Agreed, but following the same logic would the RX-7 get twin piston calipers, trick 5th gear, rear wing and power steering delete? After all, those cars are about a second a lap faster than any other car in ITS.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Agreed, but following the same logic would the RX-7 get twin piston calipers, trick 5th gear, rear wing and power steering delete?
No Rob, that logic doesn't fly at all. With the MT 325, we are talking about a CHASSIS difference from teh cars that are listed on the line.

The RX-7 had many different (both high and low production versions) that make up the ITS RX-7. The big brakes came on many versions, the rear wing on even more and the non PS cars were actually the lower end units. The 5th gear was indeed from the GTUs of which plenty were made in 1989 but just 100 in 1990.

Again, it's not about the bits and pieces that make up the perfect ITS RX-7 because they all have the same chassis. What would be more appropriate to compare would be if the Turbo models came with a reinforced XXX and ITS drivers were using that to justify.


After all, those cars are about a second a lap faster than any other car in ITS. Maybe up hear in the NE, but not everywhere...

Like I said, we all know what is legal to do to an E36 to make it right. Repair, yes. Reinforcement, no....and it ain't any different for any other car in all of IT.

[JoshS]

I still say no one has answered my question. The deafening silence says to methat no one with these plates has any evidence to present in the event that they are protested.

Everyone has just repeated stuff they read on other forums (they came on with the option package, or BMW has stated that they were produced as a repair to this problem, or Turner says so ...) but no one has any DOCUMENTATION that proves any of it. Don't get me started on the topic of believing what the race part vendors tell you about parts legality. Turner explicitly states that metal brake caliper bushings are legal for SCCA racing. Yeah? Well, not for IT!

I'm a BMW guy and I can't find anything on this subframe mount issue. I'm not sure why Andy is willing to believe that people are "replacing per factory specs" without seeing a factory spec.

I guess I'm just a conservative rules reader. But based on what I know, I would NOT install those plates on my IT car, even as a reactive repair after a failure.

EDIT: one would expect such a document to be in the TIS, right alongside the instructions for repairing a failed shock tower on the 325i. That's a totally analogous situation. If this document isn't there, where would it be?

[Doc Bro]

metal brake caliper bushings are legal for SCCA racing. Yeah? Well, not for IT!




What part of 'bushings are free' am I misunderstanding?

R

[Z3_GoCar]

Josh,

Something completly analouguos, that I know about. Does the TIS for the Z3 have the factory proceedure for fixing a cracked differential mount? I know that I've seen several where the dealer will weld a second mount over the first. However, it seems the dealer has to bring in an rep to tell them how to perform the repair, thus avoiding the documentation and resulting liability if something goes wrong with the repair. Maybe it's a similar kind of situation... non-documented dealer/factory repairs.

James

[Greg Amy]

What part of 'bushings are free' am I misunderstanding?
The part about them being under the category rules for suspension...?

Of course, if we're agreeing that any bushing that suspends anything is free, let me know...'cause you ain't gonna like the results...just sayin'...

GA, who's really hoping our BMW friends are not replacing their rubber caliper bushings with anything non-rubber...

[JoshS]

Josh,

Something completly analouguos, that I know about. Does the TIS for the Z3 have the factory proceedure for fixing a cracked differential mount? I know that I've seen several where the dealer will weld a second mount over the first. However, it seems the dealer has to bring in an rep to tell them how to perform the repair, thus avoiding the documentation and resulting liability if something goes wrong with the repair. Maybe it's a similar kind of situation... non-documented dealer/factory repairs.

James
I've never seen any acknowledgement by BMW for the diff mount/trunk floor problem, just like I've never seen anything for the E36 problem.

Therefore, such a dealer-installed repair would not be legal in IT, even if a verbal agreement with a BMWNA employee allowed BMWNA to pay for the repair.

[Doc Bro]

The part about them being under the category rules for suspension...?

Of course, if we're agreeing that any bushing that suspends anything is free, let me know...'cause you ain't gonna like the results...just sayin'...

GA, who's really hoping our BMW friends are not replacing their rubber caliper bushings with anything non-rubber...


Mine are stock, but I thought this went back and forth several years ago...with the end interpretation being bushings are free. I could be mistaken. I thought it was around the whole spherical "bushings" and "air bushing" era.

From the GCR;
bushing- a sleeve or tubular insert, whose purpose is to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole. A protective liner that cushions noise, friction, or movement such as a rod end or spherical bearing.

The suspension section clearly states bushing material is unrestricted as we all know.

The brake section states that brake linings are unrestricted....what's the difference between a liner and a lining?:cool: Brake connectors are unrestricted. Isn't a connector something that "connects" the something to something else? As in the caliper to the car? Seeing how lining and connector aren't defined in the GCR I'm unsure.

I think this subject is pretty gray...as I stated before mine are stock so don't be a hater....just posing a counterpoint.

R

[JoshS]

Mine are stock, but I thought this went back and forth several years ago...with the end interpretation being bushings are free. I could be mistaken. I thought it was around the whole spherical "bushings" and "air bushing" era.

From the GCR;
bushing- a sleeve or tubular insert, whose purpose is to reduce the dimension(s) of an existing hole. A protective liner that cushions noise, friction, or movement such as a rod end or spherical bearing.

The suspension section clearly states bushing material is unrestricted as we all know.

The brake section states that brake linings are unrestricted....what's the difference between a liner and a lining?:cool: Brake connectors are unrestricted. Isn't a connector something that "connects" the something to something else? As in the caliper to the car? Seeing how lining and connector aren't defined in the GCR I'm unsure.

I think this subject is pretty gray...as I stated before mine are stock so don't be a hater....just posing a counterpoint.

R

I find that all to be a ridiculously tortured interpretation.

A brake lining is the actual brake pad/shoe material. The "connector" being referred to is the hydraulic connector. That entire paragraph is about hydraulics. Context matters.

Not even remotely gray in my opinion.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I find that all to be a ridiculously tortured interpretation.

A brake lining is the actual brake pad/shoe material. The "connector" being referred to is the hydraulic connector. That entire paragraph is about hydraulics. Context matters.

Not even remotely gray in my opinion.

+1.

[Greg Amy]

Not even remotely gray in my opinion.
But if it is, please do let me know ASAP.

GA

[Doc Bro]

I find that all to be a ridiculously tortured interpretation.

A brake lining is the actual brake pad/shoe material. The "connector" being referred to is the hydraulic connector. That entire paragraph is about hydraulics. Context matters.

Not even remotely gray in my opinion.


But Josh those are YOUR definitions not the GCR's, The GCR doesn't define these things so variability (creep) gets introduced.

SoI guess the ITAC guys get to decide what's rediculously tortured...
Let's go back to "air as a bushing" and truly talk about what's tortured.

R

[JoshS]

But Josh those are YOUR definitions not the GCR's, The GCR doesn't define these things so variability (creep) gets introduced.

SoI guess the ITAC guys get to decide what's rediculously tortured...

Of course these are all just my opinions. In my current role I don't get to decide this stuff. But in the past I have served on both protest and appeals committees, and I know how the committees that I have served on would have interpreted these situations. I think that 99 out of 100 appeals committees would agree with me. Unfortunately, too often, these things never get protested/appealed.

That past experience is part of why I have such a conservative read on the allowances.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Oye. Looks like it's time to tear some cars down in NER.

[Doc Bro]

oye. Looks Like It's Time To Tear Some Cars Down In Ner.


+100

While were at it we should clean up the on track antics as those have gotten out of hand too.

R

[mlytle]

yee ha! another e36 hater thread! harkens back to the good old days when we ran unrestricted in ITS! :P

as an e36 racer though, the metal replacement bushing for the brake calipers are NOT legal in ITS. they ain't brake linings and they certainly ain't part of the suspension.

[GKR_17]

I think this subject is pretty gray...

Ridiculous. Not even remotely legal, or gray.

[GKR_17]

Oh come on.. those bushings suspend the calipers right? Give me a break. Anyone remember when they tried to justify internal coatings because they were "lubricants"? That didn't fly either.

[mlytle]

some folk have trouble wih engish. suspend as a verb vs. the gcr use of suspension as a noun...;)

[ekim952522000]

Does anyone have a link to the bushings you guys are talking about?

[JoshS]

Does anyone have a link to the bushings you guys are talking about?

Here you go Mike:

http://www.turnermotorsport.com/html/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=CBMW1

The issue is that all of these cars have single-piston sliding calipers, and the caliper slides on metal pin, but with a rubber bushing. The brake can feel really squishy and cause uneven pad wear due to the flexibility in the rubber, especially as the pads get low and the piston is extended.

These metal replacements are very common for track cars and BMWCCA club racing.

[Ron Earp]

The issue is that all of these cars have single-piston sliding calipers, and the caliper slides on metal pin, but with a rubber bushing. The brake can feel really squishy and cause uneven pad wear due to the flexibility in the rubber, especially as the pads get low and the piston is extended.


Oh my goodness!!! :o

You mean the designers of The Ultimate Driving Machine have made an engineering error that leads to their creation having a perceived flaw for track use?

No way, I don't believe it. All the BMW Club track days start out with "Your BMW was born and bred for the track, it'll be fine to use just as is...."

Heaven forbid we get uneven pad wear and a really squishy pedal.....Jeez, I wish that was all I had to worry about on my IT dinosaur.

[Doc Bro]

Oh come on.. those bushings suspend the calipers right? Give me a break. Anyone remember when they tried to justify internal coatings because they were "lubricants"? That didn't fly either.


And air as a bushing is justifiable in your mind....give me a break. Is air then justifiable as a washer bottle or wiring harness in your mind?

R

[dj10]

Oh my goodness!!! :o

You mean the designers of The Ultimate Driving Machine have made an engineering error that leads to their creation having a perceived flaw for track use?

No way, I don't believe it. All the BMW Club track days start out with "Your BMW was born and bred for the track, it'll be fine to use just as is...."

Heaven forbid we get uneven pad wear and a really squishy pedal.....Jeez, I wish that was all I had to worry about on my IT dinosaur.

Easy Ron, I don't want to see you stroke out on us.:)

[Andy Bettencourt]

And air as a bushing is justifiable in your mind....give me a break. Is air then justifiable as a washer bottle or wiring harness in your mind?

R

Can you cite someone/some car who actually does this and claims it's legal? I think it's bantered about but in reality it's internet folklore.

[Doc Bro]

Can you cite someone/some car who actually does this and claims it's legal? I think it's bantered about but in reality it's internet folklore.


No AB. I know no one. But I remember the discussions about it ad nauseum, as I know you do.

My comments were only directed at the fact that the GCR offers no clarity on the questions I posed. Next thing you know I'm a rules creeper. As I stated mine are stock rubber, period. Reminds me of the RX7 1st gen rear wing guy.....easy to see why he made the mistake....even easier to see why he got beat up here. I guess I learned my lesson....I'll spend more time with my family and less time on IT.com. I'll let the "pro's" chase windmills.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

*I* don't feel like the GCR has to offer clarity to the questions you posed Rob, because *I* don't feel you have posed reasonable questions.

The bushings on your racecar are not free. Suspensions bushings may be replaced. Has nothing to do with brakes. By your logic, engine mounts would be free because they are bushings. Just not true.

The section of the ITCS in which an allowance is given IS applicable.

[Bruce Shafer]

Thanks for the great read on a Monday morning.

Reminds me of the golden days of IT. :023:

[Gary L]

While we're kicking this can down the road, I would like to mention one of my pet peeves. There is a word that is used a lot in this forum that sometimes only adds to the confusion hereabouts... the word is "free", as in "...bushings are free", "pads are free", etc, etc.

The word "free" does not exist in the ITCS, and to my knowledge, never has. Since the word "free" means many things to many people, and since it is not in the ITCS, I would suggest we quit using it.

[mlytle]

Here you go Mike:

http://www.turnermotorsport.com/html/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=CBMW1

The issue is that all of these cars have single-piston sliding calipers, and the caliper slides on metal pin, but with a rubber bushing. The brake can feel really squishy and cause uneven pad wear due to the flexibility in the rubber, especially as the pads get low and the piston is extended.

These metal replacements are very common for track cars and BMWCCA club racing.

there are ways to avoid squishy pedal and angled pad wear as they get low without using illegal metal bushings.....

[Z3_GoCar]

I've never seen any acknowledgement by BMW for the diff mount/trunk floor problem, just like I've never seen anything for the E36 problem.

Therefore, such a dealer-installed repair would not be legal in IT, even if a verbal agreement with a BMWNA employee allowed BMWNA to pay for the repair.

Just because the GCR mandates that the manufactures provide XYZ (in this case it's a document stating dealer repair methods) to a racer doesn't mean that the manufacturer will. In this case of drastice chassis repairs, there is probably legal liability reasons for the absense of such a document along with proprietary reasons. Just because the document doesn't exist doesn't means it strictly illegal either.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just because the document doesn't exist doesn't means it strictly illegal either.

Then how do you know how to perform the repair? :blink:

[Greg Amy]

Just because the document doesn't exist doesn't means it strictly illegal either.
Actually, James, per the explicit rules it means exactly that....

:shrug:

GA

[lateapex911]

Wow...never knew THIS was where the rules and regs soap opera went!

For the record, Air bushings. It is said that RX-7s (early cars like mine), when lowered will bind the rear axle and destroy U joints. That's because the stock upper trailing arm pulls the axle forward at teh top at that point in it's travel. The rules allow the addition of traction bars, and with a properly designed traction bar, one can do what you wouldn't normally think of: use really soft bushings as opposed to the typical hard replacements, in the upper trailing arms. This allows the axle to rise and fall without twisting forward, and removes the binding.

Now, I haven't crawled under anyone's RX-7 in a long long time, but rumour has it that not only are the bushings just not replaced at all, but the upper trailing arms are just left off certain cars. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me, but, at the front, my bet is all RX-7s are legal. Mine runs hard foam in the upper trailing arm bushing locations. (I can't imagine the racket air would create if used as a bushing!)

Air bushings? Silly boys!

[Knestis]

A bushing made of closed-cell foam would in fact be a composite of an elastic material and air. Not a problem under the current regime. Removing the [whatever] altogether would be OK if the rule allowed replacement or "removal." Remember some rules (e.g., the sway bar allowance) didn't actually allow that, although in this example the language was changed.

We should all - myself included - read Gary's really good point a few more times.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

The RX-7 had many different (both high and low production versions) that make up the ITS RX-7. The big brakes came on many versions, the rear wing on even more and the non PS cars were actually the lower end units. The 5th gear was indeed from the GTUs of which plenty were made in 1989 but just 100 in 1990.



It has been pointed out to me offline that I may have inferred that ITS RX-7 drivers were creating a model that didn't exist by cherry-picking the best stuff from different models. What I was trying to do for Rob was to show him that the items he listed for the most part, were not low production stuff and indeed available on all RX-7's.

The model that is being created is the 89-90 GTUs. The desirable part from this model is the 5th gear ratio (.76 instead of .71). And even at that number, it is worse than most everything in ITS.

[robits325is]

It has been pointed out to me offline that I may have inferred that ITS RX-7 drivers were creating a model that didn't exist by cherry-picking the best stuff from different models. What I was trying to do for Rob was to show him that the items he listed for the most part, were not low production stuff and indeed available on all RX-7's.

The model that is being created is the 89-90 GTUs. The desirable part from this model is the 5th gear ratio (.76 instead of .71). And even at that number, it is worse than most everything in ITS.

My opinion is when you can change so many pieces and create a parts room model that exceeds the model that was classified then there should be a re-evaluation. I think that some of these RX-7 models should be on an individual spec line just like the 92 325i should be on a different spec line from the 93-95 325i

[JeffYoung]

Rob, on the BMW, is that due to OBDI v. OBDII? Or is it some other fundamental differences between the two different groups of model years?

I'm just curious, didn't realize there were differences in the E36 run.

Thanks.

Jeff

[Andy Bettencourt]

My opinion is when you can change so many pieces and create a parts room model that exceeds the model that was classified then there should be a re-evaluation.

But you are infering by saying 'parts room model' that what is on track never existed when in fact, peple are creating the 1989-1990 GTUs. Here are some facts for you:

It has no more HP than ANY other 89-91 RX-7
It has the SAME brakes as the GXL
It has the same rear wing as the GTU and GXL

The differences were a 4.30 viscous (vs 4.10 open) and the slightly upgraded 5th gear of that the only thing applicable to IT racing is the transmission...and oh yes, it did have an aluminum hood that it shared with the convertible.

And it wasn't limited production like the MT 325. Only about 1100 were made but that was due to lack of demand, not a limited production run. It was a fully documented model in the brochures.

[robits325is]

Rob, on the BMW, is that due to OBDI v. OBDII? Or is it some other fundamental differences between the two different groups of model years?

I'm just curious, didn't realize there were differences in the E36 run.

Thanks.

Jeff

The 92 had different engine internals; springs, pistons, non-vanos, and different cams as well as a different ECU and harness (eliminated by the ECU rule now)

[dickita15]

My opinion is when you can change so many pieces and create a parts room model that exceeds the model that was classified then there should be a re-evaluation. I think that some of these RX-7 models should be on an individual spec line just like the 92 325i should be on a different spec line from the 93-95 325i
All that would do is split out the 86-88 Rx7s which would have to be at a lower weight due to the lower horsepower.

[Andy Bettencourt]

All that would do is split out the 86-88 Rx7s which would have to be at a lower weight due to the lower horsepower.

Yup - 146hp. 2450 in ITS (never get there) or 2750 in ITA!!! Now THERE is an interesting idea... :)

[robits325is]

Yup - 146hp. 2450 in ITS (never get there) or 2750 in ITA!!! Now THERE is an interesting idea... :)

According to post #76 the horsepower on the "lesser" models is the same? or did I read that between the lines?

[JeffYoung]

Rob, the early 2nd Gen RX7s made 146 hp.

The later ones 160 hp.

All of the later model GL/GXL/GTU/GTUs made 160, which is I think what Andy was saying.

[Andy Bettencourt]

According to post #76 the horsepower on the "lesser" models is the same? or did I read that between the lines?

The 1986-1988 NA RX-7's all had 146 stock hp. The 89-91 NA RX-7's all had 160 stock hp - regardless of model. They are many mechanical differences in the motors. Nobody runs a 146hp motor in ITS.

[GKR_17]

The 92 had different engine internals; springs, pistons, non-vanos, and different cams as well as a different ECU and harness (eliminated by the ECU rule now)

And half a point less compression. Though the stock numbers show the same, that engine has a lot less potential than the '93 and later units. Except for the BMW stigma, the '92 might be a good fit without the SIR at near the current weight. I'm certainly not holding my breath though.

[robits325is]

The 1986-1988 NA RX-7's all had 146 stock hp. The 89-91 NA RX-7's all had 160 stock hp - regardless of model. They are many mechanical differences in the motors. Nobody runs a 146hp motor in ITS.

If the 86 is 146hp and the 91 is 160hp then why are they on the same spec line?

[Greg Amy]

The 1986-1988 NA RX-7's all had 146 stock hp. The 89-91 NA RX-7's all had 160 stock hp - regardless of model. They are many mechanical differences in the motors. Nobody runs a 146hp motor in ITS.
And, if they were split out, then they'd also not have the bigger brakes, the rear wing, and the trick 5th gear, yes? Their only "parts bin" advantage versus the current ITS rocket is the lack of power steering.

Honestly, at the right weight, I think that would be a fine addition to ITA. And, it would give members the opportunity to race the 2nd-gen car competitively with minimal changes. A win-win as far as I'm concerned, and a great illustration of why it's a bad idea to put significantly different cars on the same spec line.


If the 86 is 146hp and the 91 is 160hp then why are they on the same spec line?
Same reason as the ITA 1.8L Miatas, and the E36s, and several other cars are: someone thought it was a good idea, that it would make for simplicity. In the end all it does is force preparation to the highest level in order to be competitive.

And that's not really what Improved Touring is supposed to be about.

GA

[Knestis]

Seems to me that a pretty good argument can be made in both of these examples (2nd-gen RX7 and the e36 325) to have multiple spec lines. But the simplicity argument has merit, too. Looking at first principles, which way do we think the scales tip? I ask because others might agree with Greg's contention of "what IT is supposed to be about..."

(FWIW, I personally tend to agree with his thesis, even if ITAC practice typically leans the other direction.)

KK

[JeffYoung]

Anybody have any idea how many cars have different hp ratings on the same spec line?

I tried to think of others besides the ITA Miata and RX7, and can think of only one. Mine -- 133 for the carb car, 137 for FI.

Just trying to understand how big of a universe we are dealing with.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Anybody have any idea how many cars have different hp ratings on the same spec line?

I tried to think of others besides the ITA Miata and RX7, and can think of only one. Mine -- 133 for the carb car, 137 for FI.

Just trying to understand how big of a universe we are dealing with.

I will have to go back and look, but the 2nd gen Interga in ITA had various hp numbers, tranny ratios, etc.

[shwah]

Since the 'best' option is considered when classing the car, I don't see why it matters if the weaker sibilngs are on the same spec line.

Simple is better IMO.

[robits325is]

Since the 'best' option is considered when classing the car, I don't see why it matters if the weaker sibilngs are on the same spec line.

Simple is better IMO.

The only problem with simple is that Frankenstein cars are created that exceed the classified model. The sum of the parts becomes greater than intended and an over dog is potentially created.

[shwah]

As long as the desireable systems are considered during classifications (and they are - though I wish my car was classed at the lower 1985 Golf GL power level...), they don't exceed the classified model capability, because they ARE the classfied model.

Please show me one instance of an overdog created within the rules this way.

[JeffYoung]

I don't believe the 2nd Gen RX7 is an overdog in ITS, at all. I've seen top flight ones get beat by ITS Miatas, 190Es, 944S, 240zs, etc.

But the only point I would make in line with Rob's is that I think the earlier chassis were lighter, and that if you can make an S4 chassis work with the S5 engine etc. you get the "best" version of an RX7 that never came from the factory. GTUs gears, wing, brakes, etc. all in the 146 hp package.

It's probably a marginal advantage, but I'd be interested to hear the RX7's guys take on this, because I may be wrong.

[Gary L]

Anybody have any idea how many cars have different hp ratings on the same spec line?

I tried to think of others besides the ITA Miata and RX7, and can think of only one. Mine -- 133 for the carb car, 137 for FI.

Just trying to understand how big of a universe we are dealing with.
I would think the ITB Volvo 140 series might be the poster child for this situation. Six model years are covered on one line entry. All six have the same basic engine, but the listing encompasses three factory engine designators (B20B, B20E, B20F), two different dual carb setups, two different Bosch injection systems, two short blocks and two heads. There is approximately 15% horsepower differential across the bunch.

The chassis for all six model years are essentially the same, but everyone that builds one of these simply uses the '71 B20E engine long block assembly and matching Bosch D-Jet injection. That particular engine is singularly the most powerful of the bunch, before and after IT tweaks. Bottom line - everyone ends up with what is essentially a '71 142E.

[shwah]

Jeff, it may be possible that is the case, but we are certainly not talking about an overdog. At the end of the day, the cars that are built to the limit of the spec line are appropriately competitive, which is the goal right?

[dickita15]

The only problem with simple is that Frankenstein cars are created that exceed the classified model. The sum of the parts becomes greater than intended and an over dog is potentially created.

Well in the case of the RX7 that is not true, everything you want is on the GTU model, highest HP, better 5th gear, alum hood and spoiler. Even if they were broken out without the VIN number rule the cars would all be built to that spec.
There are no Frankenstein just all built to the best year.

[JeffYoung]

Chris, I agree, it's a nit I should not have picked. At least in the case of the 2nd Gen RX7, I think it is a perfect example of a well classed, well developed, very competitive NON-overdog car.

I'm I guess a bit of an IT "modernist" and the added simplicity of having all years of the 2nd Gen model on one line outweighs what little incongruity there is in it.....so, consider this nit dropped.


Jeff, it may be possible that is the case, but we are certainly not talking about an overdog. At the end of the day, the cars that are built to the limit of the spec line are appropriately competitive, which is the goal right?

[JeffYoung]

Gary, since you have a lot of experience wtih this, in your opinion, is that a good or a bad thing, to have six different model years with varying induction systems and power outputs on the same line?

Or would the lower power cars be better served on a different line in C?

The flip side is that having the option to build any 140 into an ITB 140E opens up the number of actual chassises available to you, correct?

Interested in your thoughts, because I agree, that car looks like the poster child for this "issue" (if it is one).


I would think the ITB Volvo 140 series might be the poster child for this situation. Six model years are covered on one line entry. All six have the same basic engine, but the listing encompasses three factory engine designators (B20B, B20E, B20F), two different dual carb setups, two different Bosch injection systems, two short blocks and two heads. There is approximately 15% horsepower differential across the bunch.

The chassis for all six model years are essentially the same, but everyone that builds one of these simply uses the '71 B20E engine long block assembly and matching Bosch D-Jet injection. That particular engine is singularly the most powerful of the bunch, before and after IT tweaks. Bottom line - everyone ends up with what is essentially a '71 142E.

[Knestis]

The only problem with simple is that Frankenstein cars are created that exceed the classified model. The sum of the parts becomes greater than intended and an over dog is potentially created.

That's not actually the case - simply by definition. The "classified model" is defined by the spec line, not by some year/model/trim level that the manufacturer designates.

And as was pointed out, where the ITAC knows about substantial differences in performance among specs within a line, we try to set the race weight based on the "best" combination. We just went through this conversation with old Volvos, for Pete's sake.

Now, the question of whether we should list SEPARATELY year/model/trim level/whatever different than the "best" option is a VERY good one. But let's not get lost here.

K

[Gary L]

Jeff - I would be of the opinion that we're doin' fine, just the way we are. If you break all those engine/chassis combinations out to separate line entries, IMO you most likely will not end up with significantly more 40 year old Volvo's in IT than you have today. :)

Kirk - Does your "old Volvo" reference mean you guys (ITAC) finally discussed my letter on the 142/144 "Notes" entry in the ITCS? I had almost forgotten about it to be honest.

[JoshS]

Jeff - I would be of the opinion that we're doin' fine, just the way we are. If you break all those engine/chassis combinations out to separate line entries, IMO you most likely will not end up with significantly more 40 year old Volvo's in IT than you have today. :)

Kirk - Does your "old Volvo" reference mean you guys (ITAC) finally discussed my letter on the 142/144 "Notes" entry in the ITCS? I had almost forgotten about it to be honest.
Gary, we haven't met since you and I spoke on the phone after the last meeting. We meet monthly.

[Knestis]

We talked about how we'd tackle the "old Volvo question," as part of our ongoing discussion about how to reconcile a lot of requests that have been submitted about ITB cars. It was an example of how there seemed to be lots of different configurations on a given spec line (or split among spec lines) so it was a handy case study in clarifying how we think about them.

We got some input but we're not done with the question.

K

[robits325is]

The only problem with simple is that Frankenstein cars are created that exceed the classified model. The sum of the parts becomes greater than intended and an over dog is potentially created.

I didn't mention the RX-7. Still, this scenario is possible when variations of a car are clumped together.

[Z3_GoCar]

Josh,

How much do you think port matching is worth?? I bet it's about 4hp..

[madrabbit15]

I think what Gary was referring to was the fact the 140 volvo came in different engine configurations. The high compression bottom ends were delivered carberated, and the lower compression bottem ends were fuel injected. The car never came with high compression and fuel injection. I was told this years ago, but never knew it was true or not.

But when you put all all those configurations on one spec line it allows you to mix and match. :017:


Derek

[shwah]

I didn't mention the RX-7. Still, this scenario is possible when variations of a car are clumped together.

Again, that's not the case if the best aspects of each system on that line are considered when classifying the car. The factors of the cars on the spec line are considered in the process. There were versions of my car with something like 10% less hp stock than the best of the spec line - and yeah I could build that car/motor, but the weight is based on 'doing it right'. So the only real risk is that some cars are slower than they ought to be, not faster.

[lateapex911]

Regarding the multiple models on the same spec line, an example came up recently about the ITS Porsche 911s. Each different listing had the E model and the T model on the same line. They have vastly different hp, although the engines are the same size. The weight was set for the higher powered car, making the T a dog with no home.

So we broke them apart. T's are vastly cheaper due to the E's relative scarcity, and the injection (mechanical) is rather finicky. However, certain year T engines are plentiful, as all the P car guys want to bump up to larger sizes, and the carbs are tunable. Once the weights were set properly, the T makes a more enticing proposition because of cheap plentiful parts.

And, if the weights are set correctly, they will run neck and neck.

The CRB put them both on the same line at the time because they felt nobody would bother racing the more utilitarian T.


As for building hybrids that have a better sum, one thing that needs to be kept in mind is that updating back dating requires whole assemblies. However, I do see a possible issue when a superior injection system can be used on a higher stock compression motor it was never paired with.

[ekim952522000]

In regards to the 92 325 being on it's own spec line I am noticing that the 92's engines and the cars in general are much cheaper(maybe do to there less desirable engine) but it seems to me it would be nice if the 92 was on it's own spec line. Right now the 92 is basically pointless to buy and think about building do to the fact that you would have to update to all the 93 stuff.

[Greg Amy]

...I do see a possible issue when a superior injection system can be used on a higher stock compression motor it was never paired with.
From GCR 9.1.3.C, the same paragraph that allows updating/backdating: "Additionally, it is not permitted to 'create' a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies."

Ergo, it is permissible to "update" to match the specs of a "superior" car, but you cannot create a car with a combination of equipment that the factory never delivered. What you describe above would be illegal.

To clarify my point from my prior post, all I'm saying is that by splitting out different-spec cars, such as the S4 and S5 RX-7, you create the opportunity for someone to race the "lesser" car competitively without being forced to upgrade to the "better" specs. Without that split no one can race the base S4 competitively.

If you think that's best for the category in pursuit of simplicity, I can understand. But, I respectively disagree: being forced to upgrade the lesser-expensive, easily-obtainable model to more-rare, more-expensive specs is most assuredly not "simpler" for anyone except the rulesmakers... - GA

[Gary L]

I think what Gary was referring to was the fact the 140 volvo came in different engine configurations. The high compression bottom ends were delivered carberated, and the lower compression bottem ends were fuel injected. The car never came with high compression and fuel injection. I was told this years ago, but never knew it was true or not.

But when you put all all those configurations on one spec line it allows you to mix and match. :017:


Derek
But as others have pointed out, if what you say were true, it would be illegal to put FI on the high compression engine, as you would be "...creating a model".

But just for the record, let's be perfectly clear; there was a high compression fuel injected engine, complete with the "right" head and the "right" cam, sold in the 140 series Volvo in the US... the 1971 142E. So purely from a horsepower perspective, everyone (via update/backdate) "builds" a '71 142E, regardless of which of the 6 model years they are using for a chassis. All perfectly legal, no gray area whatsoever.

[Knestis]

I think what Gary was referring to was the fact the 140 volvo came in different engine configurations. The high compression bottom ends were delivered carberated, and the lower compression bottem ends were fuel injected. The car never came with high compression and fuel injection. I was told this years ago, but never knew it was true or not.

But when you put all all those configurations on one spec line it allows you to mix and match. :017:


Derek

Does not.

Update/backdate defines "assemblies" in such a way that, while there will be some potential for mix-and-match, we can't completely cherry pick what we do. For example, we've got to use the entire short block as an assembly. I can't put the OBDII-spec head on my OBDI-spec block. In the Volvo example, the entire block/head assembly has got to stay in one piece. If the later FI "assembly" will bolt to that head, OK. If not, too bad.

(Taking your scenario as a given, for illustrative purposes.)

K

[Knestis]

In regards to the 92 325 being on it's own spec line I am noticing that the 92's engines and the cars in general are much cheaper(maybe do to there less desirable engine) but it seems to me it would be nice if the 92 was on it's own spec line. Right now the 92 is basically pointless to buy and think about building do to the fact that you would have to update to all the 93 stuff.

A good example - again, presuming that's all accurate.

...and I *personally* don't think the "can't create a model" language is helpful to the whole exercise. It's way too open to interpretation, and inconsistent with how many of us think about what we're doing. If there are particular things that we do or don't want the rules to allow, we need to make sure that the rules are internally consistent, at the level of detail at which we tend to use them, to make that so. This, instead of counting on an over-broad statement to handle it.

K

[Greg Amy]

...and I *personally* don't think the "can't create a model" language is helpful to the whole exercise...an over-broad statement to handle it.
Hmmm, a rare moment of Knestis/Amy disagreement. I'm not clear what you mean by that, but don't we both agree that minimalist-wording rules that rely on common sense (i.e., non-torturated) interpretation are the best (e.g., IIDSYCTYC?)

That restriction has been there as long as updating/backdating has, Kirk, you know that. And, I think you agree that it was INTENTIONALLY put there along with UD/BD to specifically disallow Frankenstein cars. After all, what other purpose would it have, and, given that, how more specific does it need to be to meet its goals?

It may be that we disagree as to what you can do; in other words, you may be OK with Frankenstein cars (see above your "...[if] the later FI "assembly" will bolt to that head, OK...") But if so, you have disagreement from me, and I suspect you may be a victim of incrementalism of how we ARE doing things versus how we SHOULD HAVE been to the rules.

After all, that "can't create a model" language, while broad, is pretty darn clear...or it's irrelevant, needs to be removed, and let the subsequent results lay as they may...

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

And, if they were split out, then they'd also not have the bigger brakes, the rear wing, and the trick 5th gear, yes? Their only "parts bin" advantage versus the current ITS rocket is the lack of power steering.

Honestly, at the right weight, I think that would be a fine addition to ITA. And, it would give members the opportunity to race the 2nd-gen car competitively with minimal changes. A win-win as far as I'm concerned, and a great illustration of why it's a bad idea to put significantly different cars on the same spec line.


Same reason as the ITA 1.8L Miatas, and the E36s, and several other cars are: someone thought it was a good idea, that it would make for simplicity. In the end all it does is force preparation to the highest level in order to be competitive.

And that's not really what Improved Touring is supposed to be about.

GA

This is a very interesting discussion and it really does follow the principles of IT. Breaking cars out and giving people more options is good.

For the record on the RX-7's: Many of the parts you see on ITS cars are NOT rare. The brakes also were available on the 86-88 cars as was the rear wing. The GXL and GTU were very common cars that had these items. There was no aluminum hood or 'better' 5th gear on any of the 86-88 cars as far as the documentation I have shows. The SE of that gen was a 4-lug, smaller brake car and was very entry level. It was not nearly as popular as the 3-4 other models.

It would be real interesting to have a 146hp S4 2nd gen car in ITA. If you extrapolate the power gains the S5 gets, I bet it could make 155whp (~30% gains) and about 125ftlbs. Around 2750lbs in ITA would make it interesting. Not my first choice, but certainly an option. I have never seen anyone 'IT-ize' the 146hp lump. The rotors have less compression.

[Knestis]

Hmmm, a rare moment of Knestis/Amy disagreement. I'm not clear what you mean by that, but don't we both agree that minimalist-wording rules that rely on common sense (i.e., non-torturated) interpretation are the best (e.g., IIDSYCTYC?)

That restriction has been there as long as updating/backdating has, Kirk, you know that. And, I think you agree that it was INTENTIONALLY put there along with UD/BD to specifically disallow Frankenstein cars. After all, what other purpose would it have, and, given that, how more specific does it need to be to meet its goals?

It may be that we disagree as to what you can do; in other words, you may be OK with Frankenstein cars (see above your "...[if] the later FI "assembly" will bolt to that head, OK...") But if so, you have disagreement from me, and I suspect you may be a victim of incrementalism of how we ARE doing things versus how we SHOULD HAVE been to the rules.

After all, that "can't create a model" language, while broad, is pretty darn clear...or it's irrelevant, needs to be removed, and let the subsequent results lay as they may...

GA

I'm not sure yet if we disagree since I'm still honestly clarifying my own position...

Disclaimer of Bias: I am heavily influenced by my time dealing with FIA homologation rules and concepts (GrN, GrA, etc.). I very much believe - particularly post-VIN rule - that the spec line defines what we race. The question here is about the degree to which the spec line is consistent with what the manufacturers intended, with a dash of "philosophy of IT" sprinkeled on top. Ultiimately (here's the bias), I'm OK with whatever ends up on the spec lines, as long as the outcome makes sense and is consistent with first principles. That is to say, I'm far less worried about consistency - symbolic or otherwise - with "real models" than I am with the INTERNAL consistency of what ends up in the ITCS.

If that makes sense.

Part of my issue here is that I don't think there's any real consensus around a definition of "model." Unless we're all using the term the same way, we can't all agree with what a rule using hte term means. Is a GT a different model than a GXL, GL, XLS, SE, SL, GSL-XE or Sport, if they all came in the same shell with the same general name? I think we'd find some differences of opinion on that.

Do different specifications (e.g., OBDI/OBDII, Vanos/non-Vanos, carb/FI) define different models? How much difference is necessary before this is the case (e.g., different bumpers, like on the Golfs)?

Frankenstein either was or wasn't a monster, depending on whose story you read and from which character's position - if you take my meaning. If Chris puts "big bumpers" on a "small bumper" Golf, is it a Frankencar? We CANNOT fall back on differences in performance as our standard either, so don't anybody go grabbing at that straw.

I think I understand the intent of the "can't make a model" rule but I think it's a lousy piece of writing, in context. Going back to my bias, I've always fallen back on the ITCS as our ultimate definer-of-models. Remember that when the rules were invented, they prohibited any car more than about 20 years old. Our challenge here - and in other situations - is partially due to the fact that we've now got 40+ years worth of cars to consider.

K

[madrabbit15]

Does not.

Update/backdate defines "assemblies" in such a way that, while there will be some potential for mix-and-match, we can't completely cherry pick what we do. For example, we've got to use the entire short block as an assembly. I can't put the OBDII-spec head on my OBDI-spec block. In the Volvo example, the entire block/head assembly has got to stay in one piece. If the later FI "assembly" will bolt to that head, OK. If not, too bad.

(Taking your scenario as a given, for illustrative purposes.)

K

agreed.....

I was merely stating what gets interpreted most of the time. I 100% agree that creating a model is not legal. When the GCR puts multiple models in the same spec line 99% of racers are going to take the best from all models on the same line. Its not right but we all know how racers are.

As for the Volvo, I am glad Gary clarified. I had only heard of that situation and had no personal knowledge myself.

[lateapex911]

From GCR 9.1.3.C, the same paragraph that allows updating/backdating: "Additionally, it is not permitted to 'create' a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies."

Ah, yes, i forgot about that..


To clarify my point from my prior post, all I'm saying is that by splitting out different-spec cars, such as the S4 and S5 RX-7, you create the opportunity for someone to race the "lesser" car competitively without being forced to upgrade to the "better" specs. Without that split no one can race the base S4 competitively.

Yup, I agree, that's why i wrote teh letter to get the Porsches separated. More options, no downside.

[seckerich]

And before you class that S4 I can tell you it does a lot more than you think with a "proper" ECU. Main limitation was the electronics and the intake can be made to work. The lower compression rotors are not a huge limiter.

[shwah]

While I certainly respect the valididy of the conversation, I do think that it would be real dangerous to start mucking around with the classification of the ITS RX7. It is classed really well right now, based as much on what we know the 'right' one can do (or more) than on the spec sheet of the OEM car. There is a real risk of getting the lower rated rotary wrong - in either direction - and doing a disservice to the class in the process.

Further to Kirk's question - can I turn my FRONT 'small bumper' assy to a 'big bumper' assy on my Golf, while leaving the REAR as is? I did, because I found a big bumper used cheap and wanted to try it. I believe I am within the rules to do so , because they are separate assemblies, and they were delivered at different times on my model (heck in model year 1990 the Golf was delvered with both styles). I'm sure this is the case in other places, Kirk's motor changed from the 'beefy' forged crank, piston oil squirter bottom end mid-model year if I recall for instance.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Back on topic: my pick for ITR would be an E46 325is...

[robits325is]

Back on topic: my pick for ITR would be an E46 325is...

I think you mean 325ci (325i - Sedan). That is the model I like as well. 2,800lbs might be tough though.

[Knestis]

Topic, schmopic.

:)

K

[JoshS]

I think you mean 325ci (325i - Sedan). That is the model I like as well. 2,800lbs might be tough though.

I'd pick the Z4 2.5i over the 325Ci. Same suspension design, same engine. Smaller chassis, lower CG, etc etc. Not sure about aero though.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'd pick the Z4 2.5i over the 325Ci. Same suspension design, same engine. Smaller chassis, lower CG, etc etc. Not sure about aero though.

But you loves your Z's! I loves my Coupes... :)

[madrabbit15]

Building a e46 325 now. I should have it on track by memorial day. I will let you guys know how light I get it. It is going to be close. After a miata, I like my sedans, room is alway nice.

Derek

[Eagle7]

From GCR 9.1.3.C, the same paragraph that allows updating/backdating: "Additionally, it is not permitted to 'create' a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies."

Ergo, it is permissible to "update" to match the specs of a "superior" car, but you cannot create a car with a combination of equipment that the factory never delivered. What you describe above would be illegal.

To clarify my point from my prior post, all I'm saying is that by splitting out different-spec cars, such as the S4 and S5 RX-7, you create the opportunity for someone to race the "lesser" car competitively without being forced to upgrade to the "better" specs. Without that split no one can race the base S4 competitively.

If you think that's best for the category in pursuit of simplicity, I can understand. But, I respectively disagree: being forced to upgrade the lesser-expensive, easily-obtainable model to more-rare, more-expensive specs is most assuredly not "simpler" for anyone except the rulesmakers... - GA

Ouch. If I understand you correctly, virtually all the S4s (86-88) are illegal. The S4 has a different front bumper cover and different body side-molding than the S5 (89-91). I think you are saying the S5 engine (and any other S5-only parts) can't be used with the S4 body, because that combo never came from the factory. That would be earth-shaking.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob and team at AutoTechnic have some E46 323's in ITS. I am assuming the weight of a E46 325 would be the same. 2800 is really 2600-2620 without driver...would be cool...

[seckerich]

Ouch. If I understand you correctly, virtually all the S4s (86-88) are illegal. The S4 has a different front bumper cover and different body side-molding than the S5 (89-91). I think you are saying the S5 engine (and any other S5-only parts) can't be used with the S4 body, because that combo never came from the factory. That would be earth-shaking.

Actually no. Side molding can be removed so that is a moot point. The bumper covers should be changed as a pair to bring the tub up to 89-91 spec. You are not allowed to create a model, just bring that tub to match the desired years spec. Nothing earth shattering.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The RX-7 seems to be unusual as far as spec lines go. So many models and a pair of engine outputs. If I read correctly, Kirk is saying the the spec line defines the model - and agree because 99% of the spec lines are singular models. In order to be fair to this car, it would make sense to break them out.

So I am sure there are Franken RX-7's out there that started as early cars and were updated to later cars by assembly. From an on-track performance standpoint, they can't perform any better than the 89-91 GTUs because all the good parts are on that car.

[Knestis]

OKAY - Riddle me this, Batman...

IF substantially different parts (e.g., bumpers) define one model as distinct from another model, AND we can't put SOME of the parts from one model on another model without creating a model that never existed, THEN why even have the update/backdate rule that defines "assemblies" as the basis for updating/backdating...?

The only allowance for updating/backdating consistent with the assumptions being presented here would require updating/backdating ANY AND ALL parts/assemblies that are different, or none at all. And THAT wouldn't have been legal under the VIN rule restriction, since the VIN defines a model because it's year-specific.

Hmmm?

Kirk (who's increasingly baffled by the great inconsistencies here, between what he thought he understood and what is being presented here)

[Greg Amy]

Since you probably know my answer(s), let me turn that around on you instead: If you CAN create a model that never existed vis-a-vis bumpers, other bodywork, fuel injection systems, combination of any/all of these and more etc, then why add the further restriction of "can't create a model" to the rules?

I think at this point I can safely infer you disagree with me. That's fine, though it does in a way seem out of character (making me humorously ask: "Hey! ITAC! Who is this guy and what did you do with Kirk Knestis???") But all I'm doing is pointing out the rules for what they're saying, just like you and I always do. I suggest the onus is not on me to support the rules as they're written, but for you to try and illustrate why they don't apply as written...

GA

[Gary L]

OKAY - Riddle me this, Batman...

IF substantially different parts (e.g., bumpers) define one model as distinct from another model, AND we can't put SOME of the parts from one model on another model without creating a model that never existed, THEN why even have the update/backdate rule that defines "assemblies" as the basis for updating/backdating...?

The only allowance for updating/backdating consistent with the assumptions being presented here would require updating/backdating ANY AND ALL parts/assemblies that are different, or none at all. And THAT wouldn't have been legal under the VIN rule restriction, since the VIN defines a model because it's year-specific.

Hmmm?

Kirk (who's increasingly baffled by the great inconsistencies here, between what he thought he understood and what is being presented here)
We don't (didn't) need the VIN rule to ascribe year-specificity. Even with the VIN rule gone, you still must at some point, declare what "model" you've built, to include the year. Why? Because for starters, we could otherwise build cars that are older than 1968, or newer than current MY+4. Secondly, we could otherwise present a bogus factory shop manual, which is clearly year-specific IAW 9.1.3.C:

To establish the originality and configuration of the vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a factory shop manual for the specific make, model, and year of the automobile. This manual shall be presented when so requested at any technical inspection.

[dickita15]

I have got to admit I really have no idea what a model is in this context. There is nothing in the glossary. When speaking of Mazdas, the RX7 is a model as is the Miata or the RX3. Is the definition really finer than that? Can someone give a good example of creating a model? Are there cases where there is more than one model on a spec line now?
My 79 rx7 has 81-85 front sheetmetal and bumper as they are more plentiful and a couple of pounds lighter. Did I create a model? If so why is there even a update backdate provision?

[Knestis]

Dude - I honestly DON'T even THINK I know the answer in this case. Yeah, the rules say what they say, but WHAT they say is dependent on how we define "model." I know what I've generally understood to this point - that "model" is defined by "spec line" - but I'm calling my own interpretations into question.

Interestingly, a quick trip in the Wayback Machine to the very first IT rules...

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/downloads/ThisisIT.pdf

...shows that:

"Updating and backdating of engine, drive train, and brakes is permitted within the same make/model/engine size of car."

No reference to "assemblies," and no evidence of a prohibition against creating a model. Both of those clauses got added later to "clarify" the rule, so were certainly not among the Founding Fathers' first assumptions.

I don't think we can know with much confidence how those various pieces of the rules are supposed to reconcile among themselves at this point.

K

[Gary L]

I know one thing; having read all this, I'm glad that of all the old 142's out there that I could have bought, I ended up with one in which the engine (ummm... make that THE engine, a 71 B20E) happens to match the year model of the chassis. :happy204:

[seckerich]

This one could go the distance on mental masturbation!!:rolleyes:

[Greg Amy]

I have got to admit I really have no idea what a model is in this context.
I concur.

Is it just "Mazda RX-7"? If so, and that "model" encompasses all that an "RX-7" can be, how it is even POSSIBLE to "create" a model, short of putting in a Chevy 350ci? And, absent that Chevy engine, why have the line about allowing updating/backdating, and restricting "creation of a model", since as long as you use RX-7 parts it's impossible to "create" a model?


Interestingly, a quick trip in the Wayback Machine to the very first IT rules...
You're right: I totally forgot about that old verbiage.

My answer to your initial quesiton would have been "think of it in context of when the rules were written; i.e., bodies were rarely changed, and really the only difference between the various 'models' of 1972-1979 Borgwards as the S model that had the 1.6L and carbs and 4-speed, and the SX model that had the 1.8L, fuel injection and the close-ratio 5-speed."

Given the old verbiage, I'd suggest the original intent was so that you could not create an S+, which was the carb'd engine (and much lower classified weight) with the SX's close-ratio box, for example.

Today that clear line is no longer there; we've got the RX-7 that had two different gearboxes, two different sets of brakes, two different compression ratios, two different hoods, two different 5th gears, rear wing or no rear wing, and so forth. Only a Mazda enthusiast would even begin to understand what S4 versus S5 is all about. In the context of that original rule, I'd suggest my original premise stands, and that's my baseline.

However, we now have that new verbiage. Was that a clarification, or was it a rule change? Did it happen as a Fastrack proposal (i.e., rule change) or did it happen on a Tech Bulletin (i.e., clarification without change of rule). When did it happen? I think the answer to those questions will go a long way to interpreting its intent, as well as framing my position going forward...

GA

[Doc Bro]

It's interesting to see how this thread has morphed into the same discussion as the "so when is a wing legal in IT" thread I started several months ago. Given the uncertainty of the topic, and the fact that the topic can carry pages worth of discussion, I think it would be a good time to start to clean up this rule.

R

[juliancates]

So, I'm a noob, so please forgive the noobish questions. Since I'm currently building an ITS/R 325is, this is a timely thread.

Question: is the 1994 M-Technic 325is part of the spec line or not? I've been told that it is. Given the ability to "update/backdate", would you not be able to use the M3 style bumpers that came on this model? Going back to the subframe reinforcements, if they came on this model, wouldn't you be able to update/backdate and add them?

[Spinnetti]

So, I'm a noob, so please forgive the noobish questions. Since I'm currently building an ITS/R 325is, this is a timely thread.

Question: is the 1994 M-Technic 325is part of the spec line or not? I've been told that it is. Given the ability to "update/backdate", would you not be able to use the M3 style bumpers that came on this model? Going back to the subframe reinforcements, if they came on this model, wouldn't you be able to update/backdate and add them?

I'm in a similar boat! I see a M-Technic for sale with possibilities... is it legal for ITS/ITR (without swapping parts)?

[JoshS]

So, I'm a noob, so please forgive the noobish questions. Since I'm currently building an ITS/R 325is, this is a timely thread.

Question: is the 1994 M-Technic 325is part of the spec line or not? I've been told that it is. Given the ability to "update/backdate", would you not be able to use the M3 style bumpers that came on this model? Going back to the subframe reinforcements, if they came on this model, wouldn't you be able to update/backdate and add them?

Yes, it would seem to be part of the spec line, and therefore, you can use its parts.

As far as the subframe mount reinforcements, as we discussed earlier in the thread, in my opinion you need to have some sort of proof that the M-Technic came with them. I haven't seen anyone produce that sort of documentation yet.

[Spinnetti]

Yes, it would seem to be part of the spec line, and therefore, you can use its parts.

As far as the subframe mount reinforcements, as we discussed earlier in the thread, in my opinion you need to have some sort of proof that the M-Technic came with them. I haven't seen anyone produce that sort of documentation yet.

Thanks.. I wasn't jumping on the reinforcement bandwagon, just saw an M-Technic for sale at almost a reasonable price, and wondered if that was on the same spec line with the other stuff... just kinda looking until the right car comes along, then may pick one up to play with. Until then, I've got my ITA car I've been running for 17 years to keep rolling along with :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thanks.. I wasn't jumping on the reinforcement bandwagon, just saw an M-Technic for sale at almost a reasonable price, and wondered if that was on the same spec line with the other stuff... just kinda looking until the right car comes along, then may pick one up to play with. Until then, I've got my ITA car I've been running for 17 years to keep rolling along with :)

Hit me with a link to that MT. I would love one of those...

[dj10]

Hit me with a link to that MT. I would love one of those...

Ahhhhhh yes Andy.........come over to the dark side.;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ahhhhhh yes Andy.........come over to the dark side.;)

If I had the money, I would have an ITR E46 325 Coupe for sure! I just like that car as a street car. Plenty of seat time in an E36 M3 back in the day.

[Eagle7]

Actually no. Side molding can be removed so that is a moot point. The bumper covers should be changed as a pair to bring the tub up to 89-91 spec. You are not allowed to create a model, just bring that tub to match the desired years spec. Nothing earth shattering.

OK, turning my original question inside out, are you saying that if I use any S5-only parts on my S4 tub, that I must replace all S4-only parts with S5 parts, except those with explicit allowances, like body side molding? And if I choose not to remove my S4 side molding that I am illegal? This would be a big paradigm shift for me that I'm still trying to wrap my brain around.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, turning my original question inside out, are you saying that if I use any S5-only parts on my S4 tub, that I must replace all S4-only parts with S5 parts, except those with explicit allowances, like body side molding? And if I choose not to remove my S4 side molding that I am illegal? This would be a big paradigm shift for me that I'm still trying to wrap my brain around.

I don't think that is the case. Again, we all need to agree that the spec line defines the model. As far as the ITCS/GCR are concerned, all 1986 to 1991 RX-7's are the same model. You can update/backdate ASSEMBLIES from anything on that spec line.

As you know, it is not possible to create a car that is better than the 1989-1990 GTUs no matter what you use because they are all the same or lesser parts on the S4's.

[Spinnetti]

Hit me with a link to that MT. I would love one of those...

This is an E36, not E46.. besides, If I give you the link, you might get it ahead of me ;) I'm hoping to let it sit a while so he'll come down on price (its not pristine by any means - kind of a 'hood car).

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is an E36, not E46.. besides, If I give you the link, you might get it ahead of me ;) I'm hoping to let it sit a while so he'll come down on price (its not pristine by any means - kind of a 'hood car).

Oh, I know it's an E36. I had an E36 M3...the MT is just one of those low production cars I find cool...

[Spinnetti]

Oh, I know it's an E36. I had an E36 M3...the MT is just one of those low production cars I find cool...

What should a high milage fairly straight, but kinda tired example go for?

[Andy Bettencourt]

What should a high milage fairly straight, but kinda tired example go for?

I have no idea. So rare it's a tough call. Rob sold one a few years back...he would know.

[robits325is]

I had a perfect MT with 60k that sold for $15,500 a few years back and a pure rat ball that sold for $7,500 in 2005.

[ed325its]

...and a pure rat ball that sold for $7,500 in 2005.

Rob, That must have been quite the ad.

[ulfelder]

I had a ... pure rat ball that sold for $7,500 in 2005.

Wait a sec ... you told me it was a creampuff when you sold it to me!

Steve

[robits325is]

All it needed was hair and make-up. Knee deep in rubber and blew ice cubes.

[Olson-RRT]

As the '94 325 M Tech has been brought up a bit, thought some readers of this thread would like info on "what it is".

The car was inteneded to fill the gap while BMW was readying the M3 for the US market (first imported in '95). The car is a 325is with the additions of: alpinewiess paint, M3 bumper covers F/R, side skirts and mirrors, motorsport colored cloth interior panels, Recaro cloth seats with manual adjusters, M3 steering wheel, 17" BBS three piece wheels and sport springs and dampers (not M3 sourced which would change the front anti-roll bar mounting point from control arm to strut housing). Other than that just some badging bit and bobs. So as an ITR donor the only thing you end up with over a regular ole 325is is the bumper covers, skirts and mirrors.

[Andy Bettencourt]

As the '94 325 M Tech has been brought up a bit, thought some readers of this thread would like info on "what it is".

The car was inteneded to fill the gap while BMW was readying the M3 for the US market (first imported in '95). The car is a 325is with the additions of: alpinewiess paint, M3 bumper covers F/R, side skirts and mirrors, motorsport colored cloth interior panels, Recaro cloth seats with manual adjusters, M3 steering wheel, 17" BBS three piece wheels and sport springs and dampers (not M3 sourced which would change the front anti-roll bar mounting point from control arm to strut housing). Other than that just some badging bit and bobs. So as an ITR donor the only thing you end up with over a regular ole 325is is the bumper covers, skirts and mirrors.

What about the reinforced mounts that Rob talks about in this thread?

[JoshS]

So as an ITR donor the only thing you end up with over a regular ole 325is is the bumper covers, skirts and mirrors.
And since you can use any mirrors you want in IT, it's really just the bumper covers and side skirts.

[JeffYoung]

And since you have a whole lot of leeway with spoiler/splitter/airdam, such that only the skirts matter, what's the big deal with the M-Technic in IT? Any real benefit?

[dj10]

And since you have a whole lot of leeway with spoiler/splitter/airdam, such that only the skirts matter, what's the big deal with the M-Technic in IT? Any real benefit?

Other than the nose may provide some additional downforce and I do mean may, the benifit is nothing and as matter of fact the M Tech body work will probable produce more drag than the I or IS.

[robits325is]

They also had Fancy BMW Motorsport Door Handles.

[Olson-RRT]

As to the question on strengthened subframe mounting points, the unibody is the same as the 325is.

As for the body work, the standard 325 allows for a more effective splitter as the lower valance slants inward as opposed to straight down as with the M Tech. The M Tech "lip" is much shorter (and rounded, and thick and downward slopping) than could be used with the standard 325 to the maximum of the rules. So you could conclude the M Tech is less valuable as a donor and all the fuss made out of it over the years was time wasted. Looks nice though. :eclipsee_steering:

[Andy Bettencourt]

As to the question on strengthened subframe mounting points, the unibody is the same as the 325is.

As for the body work, the standard 325 allows for a more effective splitter as the lower valance slants inward as opposed to straight down as with the M Tech. The M Tech "lip" is much shorter (and rounded, and thick and downward slopping) than could be used with the standard 325 to the maximum of the rules. So you could conclude the M Tech is less valuable as a donor and all the fuss made out of it over the years was time wasted. Looks nice though. :eclipsee_steering:

I don't think there was a fuss. The uneducated would complain about the "M3" front bumper cover but nothing else. The one touchy issue is the confusion on the reinforcement and resultant chassis differences, if there are any.

[matthewAPM]

I have noticed a few ITR guys with M3 bumpers...IMO illegal

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have noticed a few ITR guys with M3 bumpers...IMO illegal

Why? Didn't that get cleared up for you in this thread?

[ekim952522000]

I have noticed a few ITR guys with M3 bumpers...IMO illegal

Don't think of it as a M3 bumper think of it as a 325 M Tech bumper.

[dj10]

I have noticed a few ITR guys with M3 bumpers...IMO illegal

Well, Matt, I have a M Tech bumper cover on my 325. Please let me know what track you will be at so you can protest me. Please bring cash because I don't accept credit cards.:cool:

[Doc Bro]

I have noticed a few ITR guys with M3 bumpers...IMO illegal


And my 328 will be sportin a 99 328is sport package bumper which looks like an M3 bumper but has no meshwork just bars in the lower opening. I think you need to (as I needed to) do more research before calling illegal.

R

[Greg Amy]

they Also Had Fancy Bmw Motorsport Door Handles.
ban!!!!

[Olson-RRT]

ban!!!!

Word has it they add ~10rwhp! Crazy thing is I have been offered a couple hundered bucks for the door handles. Believe they are easy to break when removing and hadn't wanted to deal with it otherwise... one new hoosier! One good thing about using the M Tech as a donor (with interior in good shape) is parting out can recoop a good bit of the purchase price. Think I got $2k for just the front and rear seats and the wheels (which needed lots of TLC and one was weld-repaired).

[matthewAPM]

And my 328 will be sportin a 99 328is sport package bumper which looks like an M3 bumper but has no meshwork just bars in the lower opening. I think you need to (as I needed to) do more research before calling illegal.

R

Sorry for the mistake. I was thinking that you could only get the M bumper on a 328 and not a 325. Again, sorry for the mistake.

[madrabbit15]

I am just asking so please do not ban me for this website for having a thought.....

Wouldnt the M-Tech from bumper fall under limited production front/rear spoiler, airdam or wing? As I read the rules these are illegal.

I am open to hear how they are not a limited production item as addressed by GCR 9.1.3.8b


Derek

[Doc Bro]

I am just asking so please do not ban me for this website for having a thought.....

Wouldnt the M-Tech from bumper fall under limited production front/rear spoiler, airdam or wing? As I read the rules these are illegal.

I am open to hear how they are not a limited production item as addressed by GCR 9.1.3.8b


Derek


Ohhh boy!

[madrabbit15]

Ohhh boy!

No... please explain, I am curious......

Was this already a lengthy discussion at some point in the past that I can go look at?

I think you may have misunderstood my comment. It is clear defined that limited production goodies are not compliant. I am just curious how these m-tech or sport package items do not fall under this rule.

I myself am building an e46 for ITR and would love to use sport package items but I was afraid they would not be compliant. If there is an agrument why they do not fall into limited production items, I would like to know for myself for my car. ISport package items my not be near as "limited" as say the M-Tech stuff. Again, I am just trying to understand this.

Thank you,

Derek

[Gary L]

Again, I am just trying to understand this.

+1. Just waking up to the fact that (according to the usual infallible sources on the web :)), there were only something like 150 M-Technic cars made? Whoa!

If that's true, and we're not calling it "limited production", what in Hell is?

[Andy Bettencourt]

IMHO this piece is not what the rule is refering to. It's a front bumper cover, not a seperate spolier or air dam. The IMSA rear spoiler add-on from another thread on a 1st gen RX-7 is a good example of that rule in play I would say.

[Gary L]

IMHO this piece is not what the rule is refering to. It's a front bumper cover, not a seperate spolier or air dam.

Okay, just for grins, let's say I agree it's just a bumper cover (which I don't... it's a "spirit of the rules" thing, if nothing else).

But there's another, bigger problem. The M-Technic was apparently NOT intended to be part of the '92-95 325i/is ITCS spec line. In that entry, I see 15" and 16" wheels, but I don't see 17" wheels.

Hmmm???

[dj10]

Okay, just for grins, let's say I agree it's just a bumper cover (which I don't... it's a "spirit of the rules" thing, if nothing else).

But there's another, bigger problem. The M-Technic was apparently NOT intended to be part of the '92-95 325i/is ITCS spec line. In that entry, I see 15" and 16" wheels, but I don't see 17" wheels.

Hmmm???

Dude, what is the big F($%en deal here!!?? ITR are allowed 17" wheels. Were not in ITS. If your worried about the amount of down force these noses will produce, just put a splitter on your E36 nose and you'll have more than we do.:dead_horse:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Okay, just for grins, let's say I agree it's just a bumper cover (which I don't... it's a "spirit of the rules" thing, if nothing else).

But there's another, bigger problem. The M-Technic was apparently NOT intended to be part of the '92-95 325i/is ITCS spec line. In that entry, I see 15" and 16" wheels, but I don't see 17" wheels.

Hmmm???

I am not sure how it's a big problem. It's a rare model that has a good bumper cover for IT racing. Fact of the matter is you can build a much better front splitter/spoiler under the current rules even with the standard cover.

There is also no issue with wheel rule because 17" wheels are not listed on the spec line in ITS, and as Dan pointed out, 17" wheels are allowed in ITR.

[Gary L]

Well Dudes, :D this is a big deal because we're talking about using parts from a car that was, intentionally or otherwise, excluded from ITS and ITR when the 325i/is spec was written to show only 15" and 16" wheels as stock equipment. The fact that ITR allows 17" wheels is irrelevant and immaterial.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well Dudes, :D this is a big deal because we're talking about using parts from a car that was, intentionally or otherwise, excluded from ITS and ITR when the 325i/is spec was written to show only 15" and 16" wheels as stock equipment. The fact that ITR allows 17" wheels is irrelevant and immaterial.

I disagree. All that was being shown in the spec line is the allowed daimeters. Yes, they happen to be mostly stock but some Porsche's and the RX-7's are not allowed to use stock diameter either. It's not unique.

[Gary L]

I disagree. All that was being shown in the spec line is the allowed daimeters. Yes, they happen to be mostly stock but some Porsche's and the RX-7's are not allowed to use stock diameter either. It's not unique.

I assume you're talking about the ITS cars, right? I feel compelled to point out that "some Porsche's" and "the RX-7's" you reference have entries in the Notes column that very clearly spell out those limitations. I see no such note associated with the 325. It is, therefore - unique.

So you're telling me that when the 325i/is was classified (in ITS), the M-Technic was intended to be included, but the classifying body forgot it came on 17's? Or was it that they knew it came on 17's, but forgot to exclude them? Or what?

Finally, your phrase "...they happen to be mostly stock" is telling, to say the least. Does the column entitled "Wheel Dia." mean anything, or not? If not (and that certainly appears to be the case, particularly in ITR), then we need to eliminate the column. It's confusing the Hell out of us farm kids. :)

[JoshS]

I agree that the column doesn't really need to be there, Gary. But the wheel rules are "clear": you can use only your stock-sized wheels. If your car came with 12" wheels, you can use 13" wheels. But then, if your stock wheels were 12"-14", you can use up to 15". Except in ITR, where anyone can use up to 17", unless your wheels were larger than 17", in which case you can use your stock size too. Oh, but check the spec line, because you can't go smaller than what's listed there.

Or something like that. What a mess! And all of that about wheel diameter? Does anyone think that wheel DIAMETER matters that much?

I personally think that we should allow any size wheel, any diameter and any width too, in all 5 IT classes. Of course, we still have limitations on fender mods, and I'd keep the rule about "tread under the fender" too. So there's an effective limit.

I have three reasons for proposing the change: 1) the existing rules are just one rule layered on another layered on another. It's quite confusing. 2) The wheel sizes are the ONLY difference in prep allowances between the IT classes. The only one. I'd like to get rid of that blight on the ruleset and have all of the IT classes have identical rules. 3) We increasingly hear that it's harder and harder to find wheels for some of the older listings.

[dj10]

well Dudes, :d This Is A Big Deal The Fact That Itr Allows 17" Wheels Is Irrelevant And Immaterial.

657
:)

[Greg Amy]

Gary (and Derek) have valid points. But, we've argued this before and gotten nowhere.

Josh, that point is, it's not about the wheels; it's about the "limited production front/rear spoilers/air dams" clause. Which, just like the printed wheel sizes (and the "popular, inexpensive cars", and the written requirement to "re-evaluate" cars after the second, third, and fourth year of eligibility), is pretty much a generally-ignored, and thus moot, rule.

- GA

[madrabbit15]

Please understand I mean no harm by talking about this subject, nor am I trying to say anyone has an illegal car.

Again, I am still trying hard to understand this. I have seen post after post for years, where everyone gets so nit picky about rules, (I think a little to much). But then we come to an issue where the GCR clearly says no "limited production" items, and there are more arguments posting for then against it.

My logic is this..... brass caliper bushings.......GCR doesnt say you cant do it, but we all know if it doesnt say you can, then you cant. Numerous folks sign on here and swear if you come to their region their gonna get you. Now we have something the GCR clearly says you cannot do, but wait, the same folks are saying this limited production model is part of the spec line or some other reason.

Really? I am sorry guys, there is a lot of logic on here does not make any sense. Hello pot heres kettle...... I would never try to protest anyone for this, as it was pointed out, it really does not matter, performance wise, but the GCR does say..... I think I will just keep my run of the mill stuff on my car.

Thanks for everyones input. Look at it this way, if all we have to argue about is a bumper cover that is only on a hand full of cars, then IT cant be too bad.

Derek

[Spinnetti]

I agree that the column doesn't really need to be there, Gary. But the wheel rules are "clear": you can use only your stock-sized wheels. If your car came with 12" wheels, you can use 13" wheels. But then, if your stock wheels were 12"-14", you can use up to 15". Except in ITR, where anyone can use up to 17", unless your wheels were larger than 17", in which case you can use your stock size too. Oh, but check the spec line, because you can't go smaller than what's listed there.

Or something like that. What a mess! And all of that about wheel diameter? Does anyone think that wheel DIAMETER matters that much?

I personally think that we should allow any size wheel, any diameter and any width too, in all 5 IT classes. Of course, we still have limitations on fender mods, and I'd keep the rule about "tread under the fender" too. So there's an effective limit.

I have three reasons for proposing the change: 1) the existing rules are just one rule layered on another layered on another. It's quite confusing. 2) The wheel sizes are the ONLY difference in prep allowances between the IT classes. The only one. I'd like to get rid of that blight on the ruleset and have all of the IT classes have identical rules. 3) We increasingly hear that it's harder and harder to find wheels for some of the older listings.


I second that.. Should be able to run whatever wheel size you want that will fit per the other rules around wheel fitment. BTW, diameter does matter quite a bit, but if everybody can size as they like, we all get to experiment as we like, and there are trade offs both ways :)

I also don't get the cage rules.. The club is already nuts about safety, yet you only get the 8 attachment points... should be able to do what you want within the passenger compartment since you will be adding weight anyway to counterbalance stiffness gains.

[seckerich]

COOOOOOOL, a witch hunt and no Madza!!:birra:

[Knestis]

The rule says "Dealer installed or limited production front/rear spoilers/air dams/wings are prohibited."

To inject a little clarity, I think this is a typical e36 front end...

http://www.imcdb.org/images/010/851.jpg

... and I *think* this is the MTechnic front end, right?

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/3426/dsc00791pngrl7.png

If that much is accurate, and if in fact BMW only built 150 e36 325s and/or 328s with that front end, then it seems to me like it's probably OUTSIDE of the rules:

** The thing that's different between the two cars is quite reasonably a "front spoiler"

** 150 (accepting that number) seems by any sensible definition "limited production."

** It's not really material, I don't think, that the spoiler is part of - or connected to - another part.

But for the 1000th time, this is an enforcement issue not a rule issue. File a protest, get an answer.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

** The thing that's different between the two cars is quite reasonably a "front spoiler"

K

But it isn't a 'spoiler', it's a entire bumper cover.

I see the issues. I just think that a limited production 'model' is NOT ILLEGAL. The rules do NOT say that 'limited production items' are illegal as Derek broadly sweeps if I read his post right.

The question comes down to what you call the part. I'll call it a bumper cover that is legal to update - that came on a limited production car that is on the E36 325 spec lines in ITS and ITR.

Again, it has been said that this car has different suspension reinforcements than a plain old 325. If that is the case, then the car needs to be addressed.

[ekim952522000]

2) The wheel sizes are the ONLY difference in prep allowances between the IT classes. The only one. I'd like to get rid of that blight on the ruleset and have all of the IT classes have identical rules.

In your idea would each class would still have a width limit?

I do think that there is no reason to limit wheel diameter and actually think it might make it harder to class cars equally.

It would be much simplier if you could just say max wheel is

ITC - 6"
ITB - 6"
ITA - 7"
ITS - 7"
ITR - 8.5"

Instead of the very long confusing paragraph it is now.

[JoshS]

In your idea would each class would still have a width limit?

Greg was right, I inadvertantly changed the subject, but since it's done ...

No, I'd get rid of the width limitations too. Cars would be limited only by what fits under the unmodified fenders.

[ekim952522000]

Greg was right, I inadvertantly changed the subject, but since it's done ...

Since when has this thread ever been on subject;)



No, I'd get rid of the width limitations too. Cars would be limited only by what fits under the unmodified fenders.
The positive to this is that all of the class rules would be exactly the same.

The major con is what about all the ITB cars with 6" wheels I am sure they would all want to upgrade to 8-9" wheels that would add a lot of cost.

[dj10]

Are you saying; if I had a e36 325 m technic it would be illegal to race in ITR because of it being a limited production? I read the entire IT GCR and it doesn't say anything about limited production. If some finds the page where it might mention it, please let me know.

[Knestis]

Remember of course that the spoiler/wing/whatever rule predates unitary plastic bumpers. I'm reading this one not through 1985 eyes but through 2005 eyes.

I don't actually know - is the lip of the desirable version a separate PIECE from the rest of the bumper cover? If it isn't, does that change your interpretation, Andy? I'm splitting hairs here but the argument that it's OK seems to require that kind of parsing of language.

K

[Doc Bro]

I don't actually know - is the lip of the desirable version a separate PIECE from the rest of the bumper cover?K

It is separate and removable. And, more importantly it is OUTSIDE of the bumper when looking straight down, sooo, it really is a moot point because although it is a stock factory piece it is illegal under the current rule. If you want to run the "bumper (cover) of the gods" you gotta do it without the lip.

Secondly Kirk you implied the 328 in the 325MT debate which it shouldn't be. The 328 was not available in the MT package (at least not in the US from my research). The 328 gets "the bumper" from the 99is sport package which was not dealer installed or limited production. It also does not have the lower meshwork that the MT bumper cover has.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Remember of course that the spoiler/wing/whatever rule predates unitary plastic bumpers. I'm reading this one not through 1985 eyes but through 2005 eyes.

I don't actually know - is the lip of the desirable version a separate PIECE from the rest of the bumper cover? If it isn't, does that change your interpretation, Andy? I'm splitting hairs here but the argument that it's OK seems to require that kind of parsing of language.

K

It doesn't because the whole unit is what came on the car. As Dan said...if someone was to use an MT as a donor...the car would be perfectly legal as well as all the parts on it. And since that is the case, UD/BD is a go.

If we need to expand 'limited production' to models and not just front and/or rear spoilers (because that is all it is right now), then so be it - but without that, this is perfectly legal IMHO.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob brings up an interesting point. I will have to look back at pictures of my '95 M3, but what if a stock piece exceeds the design limitations of the ITCS?

Should it be legal to run that piece? Does the ITCS impose limitations ONLY IF you are ADDING that modification to your car when it didn't have it to begin with? Wheel diameter rule would say otherwise...

That lip is not anymore 'removable' than anything else that has to be unbolted...saying it is a seperate piece of a larger unit is more accurate.

[dj10]

It is separate and removable. And, more importantly it is OUTSIDE of the bumper when looking straight down, sooo, it really is a moot point because although it is a stock factory piece it is illegal under the current rule. If you want to run the "bumper (cover) of the gods" you gotta do it without the lip.
R

R,
Nobody that I've seen that use the M Technic front "bumper cover" uses the black splitter piece because it sticks out to far for the rules.

R, I'm not quite sure what your trying to say here? "If you want to run the "bumper (cover) of the gods" you gotta do it without the lip. "

[dj10]

It is separate and removable. And, more importantly it is OUTSIDE of the bumper when looking straight down, sooo, it really is a moot point because although it is a stock factory piece it is illegal under the current rule. If you want to run the "bumper (cover) of the gods" you gotta do it without the lip.
R

R,
Nobody that I've seen that uses the M Technic front "bumper cover" uses the black splitter piece because it sticks out to far for the rules.

R, I'm not quite sure what your trying to say here? "If you want to run the "bumper (cover) of the gods" you gotta do it without the lip. "

[JoshS]

Rob brings up an interesting point. I will have to look back at pictures of my '95 M3, but what if a stock piece exceeds the design limitations of the ITCS?

Should it be legal to run that piece? Does the ITCS impose limitations ONLY IF you are ADDING that modification to your car when it didn't have it to begin with? Wheel diameter rule would say otherwise...

We discussed that with respect to the rear shocks on the S2000. The general pricinciple, I believe, is that stock parts are always fine, but any changes made to the car under the ITCS allowances have to meet the specification of that allowance.

The wheel diameter rules do allow stock wheels, as far as I can tell. But the WIDTH rules are inflexible in that way, and probably violate the principle.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We discussed that with respect to the rear shocks on the S2000. The general pricinciple, I believe, is that stock parts are always fine, but any changes made to the car under the ITCS allowances have to meet the specification of that allowance.

The wheel diameter rules do allow stock wheels, as far as I can tell. But the WIDTH rules are inflexible in that way, and probably violate the principle.

Good memory on the RR / S2000. Without my GCR handy though, IIRC, the wording of the rule is key. You MAY add aftermarket shocks...and if you do they have to be XXX.

I think the splitter wording just gives the paramters...it doesn't reference what you can do IF you add. I could be wrong but if that is right it's a subtle but importanat differnence.

99% of the cars in the ITCS allow stock wheels but IIRC, there is a Porcshe or two that came with 16's or 17's and the spec line limits them - the same for the RX-7. The infamous GTUs came with 16's that are specifically disallowed on the line.

IMHO, stock parts should always be legal.

[Doc Bro]

R,
Nobody that I've seen that uses the M Technic front "bumper cover" uses the black splitter piece because it sticks out to far for the rules.

R, I'm not quite sure what your trying to say here? "If you want to run the "bumper (cover) of the gods" you gotta do it without the lip. "


Dan,

We're saying the same thing.

R

[ekim952522000]

.....

IMHO, stock parts should always be legal.

I agree with this to me not allowing stock parts goes against my personally philosophy of what IT is. But I do think the wheel width needs to be limited regardless of what the stock size is, I am not worried about diameter.

[madrabbit15]

But it isn't a 'spoiler', it's a entire bumper cover.

I see the issues. I just think that a limited production 'model' is NOT ILLEGAL. The rules do NOT say that 'limited production items' are illegal as Derek broadly sweeps if I read his post right.

The question comes down to what you call the part. I'll call it a bumper cover that is legal to update - that came on a limited production car that is on the E36 325 spec lines in ITS and ITR.

Again, it has been said that this car has different suspension reinforcements than a plain old 325. If that is the case, then the car needs to be addressed.


I am merely useing "limited production items" so I do not have to keep quoting the GCR about spoilers, wings and such every time I talk about it. I am only referencing them for this debate, not a broad sweep. Should stock items be allowed in IT, yes, I believe they should be. However this clause in the GCR creates a definite question about this piece on an M-Tech, or possibly other cars.

I guess the question comes down to, is it a bumper cover, or a spoiler? Lets face it, the design of this bmw piece was to include a spoiler type bumper cover. If we are going to call it a bumper cover then, I guess it would be fine, but its still not following the spirit of the rules in my opinion. As this was a limited production thing. If we are going to use parts from an M-Tech, should it be on the spec line or not?

Derek

[Andy Bettencourt]

If we are going to use parts from an M-Tech, should it be on the spec line or not?

Derek

It doesn't have to be IMHO. It's a 92-95 325is. The ITCS does not neccesarily call out the trim level. Its fairly common for cars that share the same driveline and platform to encompass all trim levels, the 'best of breed' being the chosen one.

Again, if we want to expand the 'limited production' clause to actual trim levels and stock options, that is a whole 'nother story.

[dj10]

I guess the question comes down to, is it a bumper cover, or a spoiler? Lets face it, the design of this bmw piece was to include a spoiler type bumper cover. If we are going to call it a bumper cover then, I guess it would be fine, but its still not following the spirit of the rules in my opinion. As this was a limited production thing. If we are going to use parts from an M-Tech, should it be on the spec line or not?
Derek

From Realoem.com, FRONT BUMPER TRIM, M TECHNIC01Trim panel
http://www.realoem.com/bmw/diagrams/x/g/5.png
If that's not a bumper cover I'll eat my hat!

[madrabbit15]

:happy204:

Front bumper cover it is......

So what is everyones thought on this? As long is the part is called a bumper cover and not a spoiler, we can use a limited production piece? Again, my intention this whole time was to understand myself.

Derek

[dj10]

:happy204:

Front bumper cover it is......

So what is everyones thought on this? As long is the part is called a bumper cover and not a spoiler, we can use a limited production piece? Again, my intention this whole time was to understand myself.

Derek

Can you run a M Technic in ITR? If you can, all other questions are irrelevant.

[Andy Bettencourt]

:happy204:

Front bumper cover it is......

So what is everyones thought on this? As long is the part is called a bumper cover and not a spoiler, we can use a limited production piece? Again, my intention this whole time was to understand myself.

Derek

There are two issues at play here. 1. A limited production PIECE - on its own, and 2. A limited production CAR that has unique pieces on it. In scenario #2, we have the MT 325is. Legal in IT because it's on the spec line - and all the cool little pieces that make it what it is. Scenario #1 is like the below example or the 'IMSA' rear spoiler on a 1st gen RX-7 (just quoting Mazda stuff, I am sure there are plenty of different examples from all makes). Dealer add-ons that were not part of a real package.

We have to agree on 'production'. For instance, Mazda sells this front bumper cover right out of it's network of parts departments:
http://www.import-heaven.net/images/specs/mazda_mazdaspeed_rx8_01.jpg

It may be limited production, but it was not 'PRODUCTION'. Meaning, it was not a factory option as delivered to a dealer. This kind of piece (bumper cover in this case) should NOT be allowed in IT IMHO. It isn't now, nor should it ever (too bad too - it's a gorgeous piece). No car on the RX-8 spec line ever came with that BC as stock.

The MT 325is IS on the spec line and is it's own trim level. Limited production yes, but still as delivered from BMW to a dealer.

[Knestis]

From Realoem.com, FRONT BUMPER TRIM, M TECHNIC01Trim panel
http://www.realoem.com/bmw/diagrams/x/g/5.png
If that's not a bumper cover I'll eat my hat!

...SO one can legally use the part labeled 1 but not the part labeled 23...?

K

[dj10]

...SO one can legally use the part labeled 1 but not the part labeled 23...?

K

Correct

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can't find any good pics of my E36 M3 so I can't verify the lower lip and it's legality (Lawton - quick look at yours?) but I will say this:

I do NOT think it's ok to take that lower lip off. Parts that are UD/BD are supposed to be done so as an assembly. Picking and choosing pieces and parts on that bumper cover I would say is illegal.

[Greg Amy]

If one is to accept that the M-Tech is a legal car for IT - and arguments here support that, given there's no restriction against limited production vehicles - then the car and all of its parts is legal as-is, regardless whether those parts would not meet subsequent IT rules otherwise.

If, however, you are arguing that the M-Tech bumper/spoiler is not legal for IT as-is, then you're arguing that the M-Tech vehicle itself is not legal for classification in IT...

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

So the question is simple: do stock parts trump the ITCS or does the ITCS trump the stock stuff?

[seckerich]

Can't find any good pics of my E36 M3 so I can't verify the lower lip and it's legality (Lawton - quick look at yours?) but I will say this:

I do NOT think it's ok to take that lower lip off. Parts that are UD/BD are supposed to be done so as an assembly. Picking and choosing pieces and parts on that bumper cover I would say is illegal.

I believe the car was available with or without the extra lip. My late 98/early 99 had that bumper cover. At the end of a model run they are notorious for cleaning out the parts bin. If so it is legal either way, regardless of overhang if it is a stock piece. The precedent was set with the S2000 shock good or bad.

[Greg Amy]

So the question is simple: do stock parts trump the ITCS or does the ITCS trump the stock stuff?
I would suggest it's plainly clear that stock parts trump the ITCS at all times. Thus, it becomes the responsibility of the ITCS to keep this in mind when they choose to classify vehicles of limited production.

- GA

[Doc Bro]

I raised this question a couple of seasons ago here and to the ITAC in regards to the Z3 wheels. It came with 7.5's, my arguement was specifically that it is a stock part. My how times have changed around here......

I think I'll get myself a ghost writer....it may increase my street cred....or is it that I'm just ahead of my time???:)

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

I raised this question a couple of seasons ago here and to the ITAC in regards to the Z3 wheels. It came with 7.5's, my arguement was specifically that it is a stock part. My how times have changed around here......

I think I'll get myself a ghost writer....it may increase my street cred....or is it that I'm just ahead of my time???:)

R

You aren't the first Rob and you won't be the last. Porsche guys and RX-7 guys all want to know why they can't use stock wheel sizes...and probably the crux of Josh's proposal to lift all wheel restictions.

Wheels are a perfect example where stock parts do NOT trump the ITCS.

[Greg Amy]

Wheels are a perfect example where stock parts do NOT trump the ITCS.
Any others?


On edit: assuming there are other examples - none immediately come to mind - the responsibility is upon the rulesmakers to correct these via line items, if so desired. The assumption has, and hopefully always will be, "these are the only allowed modifications from stock", or known more colloquially, IIDSYCYC. The corollary to that is if it's on a stock car, and the rules don't explicitly say that you have to remove it, then you don't. As stated above, the wheels are a good example, as there is a specific and non-equivocal line item that says "maximum wheel widths are..."

However, the M-Tech stock front splitter - assuming it extends outwards beyond the body outline - is a perfect example of where this does not apply, because the appropriate section begins "An airdam may be added..." If one does not "add" an airdam, then one is free to completely ignore this section, a section which specifies limitations to an air dam but only if it is "added". Further, if an airdam is added below the existing factory M-Tech airdam, only that addition is subject to the subsequent limitations, which, ironically, would mean it could stick out flush with the "out-sticking" stock M-Tech splitter...

I really, really, really, really hope you ITAC guys are keeping this kinda stuff in mind as you're allowing in these limited production cars... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Any others?


On edit: assuming there are other examples - none immediately come to mind - the responsibility is upon the rulesmakers to correct these via line items, if so desired. The assumption has, and hopefully always will be, "these are the only allowed modifications from stock", or known more colloquially, IIDSYCYC. The corollary to that is if it's on a stock car, and the rules don't explicitly say that you have to remove it, then you don't. As stated above, the wheels are a good example, as there is a specific and non-equivocal line item that says "maximum wheel widths are..."

However, the M-Tech stock front splitter - assuming it extends outwards beyond the body outline - is a perfect example of where this does not apply, because the appropriate section begins "An airdam may be added..." If one does not "add" an airdam, then one is free to completely ignore this section, a section which specifies limitations to an air dam but only if it is "added". Further, if an airdam is added below the existing factory M-Tech airdam, only that addition is subject to the subsequent limitations, which, ironically, would mean it could stick out flush with the "out-sticking" stock M-Tech splitter...

I really, really, really, really hope you ITAC guys are keeping this kinda stuff in mind as you're allowing in these limited production cars... - GA

An excellent interpretation on the rules IMHO - except you quote something that is not there. It doesn't say that "an airdam may be added..." It says that "a front spoiler / airdam is PERMITTED. Then it goes on to give those limitations. I think reasonable people could argue this as grey in that if you are going to use one, it has to meet the spec in the ITCS - stock or not.

My only issue is that it would be really hard to know every limited production car on every spec line. I am sure there aren't many but I am sure that when the E36 325's were classed way back when, this car was not even considered because not many people even know it exists. Add to that you would have to know WHAT parts make it special and how they fit the rules. A tall order in a procative fashion.

It's an interesting case study for sure.

[dickita15]

I think the easiest way to look at this is stock parts are legal on items that you MAY modify or substitute such as the s2000 shocks. All IT cars require some modification. You SHALL install safety equipment. You SHALL remove ABS. You SHALL secure sunroofs.

[Greg Amy]

It [actually] says that "a front spoiler / airdam is PERMITTED.
So is a stock left front fender...what are the restrictions on those? And, if it's intended to affect stock parts, why is it listed in the rules?


I think reasonable people could argue this as grey in that if you are going to use one, it has to meet the spec in the ITCS - stock or not.IIDSYCTYC.

The Roffe Corollary: "If it says you can, you bloody well CAN!"

New Amy Corollary: "If it doesn't say you have to change/remove/modify it, then you don't."


My only issue is that it would be really hard to know every limited production car on every spec line.But that's your responsibility as a rulesmaker, Andy. If you're unsure, then label it "Tabled for Research". And if you subsequently find loopholes that weren't what you intended, it's your responsibility to change it.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

But that's your responsibility as a rulesmaker, Andy. If you're unsure, then label it "Tabled for Research". And if you subsequently find loopholes that weren't what you intended, it's your responsibility to change it.

GA

And you aren't telling us anything we don't know and do if we think its appropriate. We do all the things you expect - but it's easy to Monday-morning QB the MT issue. Most Bimmer people don't even know the car exists. And even knowing what we know, it's debateable if it should be delisted.

Like I have stated, the bigger issue is limited production cars, what defines them and how do we deal with them at classifiation.

[dj10]

Can't find any good pics of my E36 M3 so I can't verify the lower lip and it's legality (Lawton - quick look at yours?) but I will say this:

I do NOT think it's ok to take that lower lip off. Parts that are UD/BD are supposed to be done so as an assembly. Picking and choosing pieces and parts on that bumper cover I would say is illegal.

Andy,
The E36 M3 front bumper cover is the exact same as the M Technic front bumper.

Does your statement mean that I can put on the black splitter piece and be legal?:)

[Doc Bro]

[quote=Andy Bettencourt;284358]Most Bimmer people don't even know the car exists.

quote]


Most Bimmer people call them BEEMER's which is a BMW Motorcycle (Bimmer is the car), let alone know about the MT.

And, yes Dan, it sounds to me like the lip would be a stock part and can be legally added.

R

[Knestis]

At this point, ANY discussion about what is or is not legal is open to interpretation through the protest and appeals process.

This conversation (speaking for myself only, of course) is useful as a case study to help us figure out how best to do ITAC business but it should most certainly NOT be considered a clarification of what is or is not legal.

K

[dj10]

And, yes Dan, it sounds to me like the lip would be a stock part and can be legally added.

R[/quote]

Oh Goodie!!!!!! a .025 lb of extra down force.:rolleyes:

[Andy Bettencourt]

What I am saying Dan is that this is for sure an interesting case study. I see it in ways that don't mesh:

1. I don't think you can legally take off the lip. If you are going to UD/BD, I feel the ITCS is clear that you have to do it as an assembly.

2. If the resultant unit is outside the paramters of what can be done when you create one on your own - should the stock piece be legal?

3. If no to #2, then should this car be specifically de-listed? If a car is outside the specs and requirmements of the ITCS in any way, should it even be allowed in?

This car IMHO shines light on a philisophical issue more than anything. Not sure where I fall currently. I see it both ways. I see it the 'wheel' way AND I see it the 'rr shock' way.

[dj10]

What I am saying Dan is that this is for sure an interesting case study. I see it in ways that don't mesh:

1. I don't think you can legally take off the lip. If you are going to UD/BD, I feel the ITCS is clear that you have to do it as an assembly.

2. If the resultant unit is outside the paramters of what can be done when you create one on your own - should the stock piece be legal?

3. If no to #2, then should this car be specifically de-listed? If a car is outside the specs and requirmements of the ITCS in any way, should it even be allowed in?

This car IMHO shines light on a philisophical issue more than anything. Not sure where I fall currently. I see it both ways. I see it the 'wheel' way AND I see it the 'rr shock' way.

Andy, I saw this coming a mile away.:) To me this is like a guy beating me and winning a race and being a few lbs. under weight, windshield washer bottle, or a person using a short shifter. I'd never protest him because I know it's not the equipment that beat me, it was the driver. If he has nitrous, that might be another story. I'll run what ever the rules say I can run. If my bumper cover is deemed illegal, at least let me crash the nose so I have an excuse to replace it and get my money out of it. The way my luck was at the end of last year, it shouldn't be too long.

[jamsilvia]

1. I don't think you can legally take off the lip. If you are going to UD/BD, I feel the ITCS is clear that you have to do it as an assembly.


Wait a sec...you are saying the above because of the idea that you have to UD/BD an assembly. What defines where the assembly ends??

I can understand someone saying part #1 in the picture is an assembly on its own. Part #23 is not the bumper cover, but a splitter added to the bumper cover. So do we call everything listed in the picture a bumper cover? Or do we only call part #1 the bumper cover?


This is only one specific case - but in general, who defines where an "assembly" ends?