Correct. Mercedes. Saturday It was driven by Irish Mike. Sunday, it was flown by Todd Buras--great job again...
Printable View
Correct. Mercedes. Saturday It was driven by Irish Mike. Sunday, it was flown by Todd Buras--great job again...
Holy Hi-Jacked post batmat... :angry:
OK so is anyone going to answer the original poster's question? :(
And now for the "just as guilty" joining the hijacking of this post. :P MB photos:
http://www.improvedtouring.com/images/ITS/atl_3_4_7.JPG
http://www.improvedtouring.com/image...ans_89_190.jpg
some "baddest of the bad" bmw's have run at watkins glen......and yet the track record was smashed in july of this year.....by an rx7.
has anyone compiled a list of track records and what car holds them? not a definitive "proof" of course, but another data set in the mix.
Ok, let's boil it down to this, since results are always going to be subjective and a moving target.
I would lke a BMW driver to post here, with a straight face, that the car is classed at the correct weight.
Cause it's not.
That's the only issue with the car. I don't care if it makes 222 rwhp or 195. Doesn't matter -- what you can do legally within the rules is legit. But the car weight is just plain wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 14 2005, 01:05 PM
Ok, let's boil it down to this, since results are always going to be subjective and a moving target.
I would lke a BMW driver to post here, with a straight face, that the car is classed at the correct weight.
Cause it's not.
That's the only issue with the car. I don't care if it makes 222 rwhp or 195. Doesn't matter -- what you can do legally within the rules is legit. But the car weight is just plain wrong.
[snapback]60144[/snapback]
[Devil's advocate] Jeff, what IS the CORRECT weight? [/Devil's advocate]
Darin's posted up some numbers, based on the ITAC's process. If that's what's in place, then that's what's in place. As he said, they're not based on on-track data, they're based on performance data. Seems pretty objective to me. To me, the on-track data simply support the fact that the process predicts a higher weight than is currently spec'd.
Here's what the process says the weight should be, so that's what it is.
Unfortunately, it's not really a two-way street. It will be born out rather quickly, if the predicted weight is too low. However, if it's too high, it will take considerably longer to demonstrate that fact. A considerable amount of development time and effort, will have to be expended, by multiple drivers of the same car.
If Nicks blue RX-7 was maxed out (10/10ths to quote) last year at the ARRC when the restrictor plate topic really heated up then how did he set new lap records around the NER this year?
BMW owners/drivers just keep pushing the envelope of development within the rules. Should they be penalized? Should everyone else get a helping hand to keep things equal? Where is the performance ceiling set?
Rob
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 13 2005, 11:19 PM
And I do have to say your claim that there are no other makes out ther as fully developed as BMWs is just wrong. People have taken teh 240zs and RX7s to places that were not thought possible. If you are saying that the RX7s and Zs at teh front of the field -- Chet Wittel's Orange Z or Nick's blue RX7 or Steve's black RX7 -- aren't maxed...well, you are just wrong.
[snapback]60120[/snapback]
Bill, I gotta hand it to you, you hit many nails on the head with that one.....
Jeff...The curb weight is taken into consideration in the process, but the question is usually, "Can this car make the weight it needs to be?"
The process defines the race weight based on creating a competitive model that fits the performance envelope.
Some cars might need to weigh, lets say, 2500 pounds to be competitive in a certain class, but it is known that they could never actually get down that low, so, the next class down is looked at, and the process is repeated for that class.
In the E36s case, it COULD get down even lower, so it might be a candidate for the class above....except there IS no class above.
The ITCS has a few examples of cars that are misclassed and/or at the wrong weights. They are being worked on.
:) When I came back to this thread, I was going to suggest that if you classed the IS300 into a higher class, maybe you could also class the 98-00 M-roadster into the same class. But this current tangent looks much more interesting.Quote:
Originally posted by Webmaster@Sep 14 2005, 09:29 AM
Holy Hi-Jacked post batmat... :angry:
OK so is anyone going to answer the original poster's question? :(
As I've not got a car yet, and the Miata looks dominant out here, maybe I should just go that route. Since you can't add weight to it because of the cage, when I've got a real suspension on it with solid bushings and the non-spec roll bars, not to mention getting rid of the stock exhaust manifold and giving it a full IT build on the motor, watch out :smilie_pokal:
James
Quote:
Originally posted by robits325is@Sep 14 2005, 06:37 PM
If Nicks blue RX-7 was maxed out (10/10ths to quote) last year at the ARRC when the restrictor plate topic really heated up then how did he set new lap records around the NER this year?
[snapback]60148[/snapback]
It's funny to me how people think that 10/10ths only involves putting parts on the car...
You guys want to know why SM is SOOO much faster than it appears it should be??? Because there are HUNDREDS of them out there tweaking, tuning, adjusting, and then SHARING that information with each other... finding the EXACT correct tire pressures, the EXACT right caster/camber combo, etc., etc.... The same might be said about the CRX... Lot's of them out there, usually driven by friendly guys who talk to each other...
Also, we are not ALL "excellent" drivers, regardless of what our egos might tell us... Just because someone has a car that they feel is built "to the limit", that doesn't mean that the car is being driven there... Development involves the driver as well, and when combined with what I mentioned above, it's possible that the driver has discovered new limits, or made a tweak which extended the limits a bit...
In reality, there is NO such thing as "Fully Developed"... Built to the max of the rules, maybe, but as I think I've shown that this does not equate to "fully developed"...
These are reasons why ON-TRACK data is NOT the basis for making IT decisions... It is, as Bill mentioned above, a good check of the process, but it's a TERRIBLE way to make decisions on adjustments... Just look at Production, where they truely penalize those who make the all-out effort by adding weight to those that are winning, regardless whether the mechanical parameters of the car warrent such adjustments...
If you run the numbers on the RX-7, both theoretical and actual dyno numbers, you'd find that it's classified as the process defines. The same is true of the 240Z. The 944 is too heavy... The 944S is a bit too light... The 240SX is close, but will require an 10/10ths effort to make that weight... Several cars are overweight at this point, some are slightly underweight at this point... Some are in the wrong class all-together... The same pattern exists in all the classes...
The BMW in question, using the exact same process, is considerably under weight... PERIOD... That's what the numbers show... both teoretical AND Actual Dyno numbers... These have NOTHING to do with BMW owners, a bias against BMWs, the fact that BMWs are expensive, or any other contrived argument as to why this car get's talked about...
ALL of the ITAC recommendations and adjustments over the past two years have been made using this process, and we will continue to do so, so long as the CRB continues to entrust us with this responsibility... And yes... getting things balanced out will take a bit of time (has taken a bit of time...), but we are working on it... We will continue to push to get these classes into a condition where the classifications make sense, and the compeition is as balanced as possible... from a mechanical parmeters standpoint, anyhow... (we can't and won't adjust classifications based on a "racing program" or, in other words, on-track performance)...
So, all this being said, the BMW IS too light, and has been since it's current weight was finalized a while back... Let's not forget that it was originally classified at 2950, and then, through some loophole in the rules and a claim that it couldn't meet that weight due to ballast not being allowed, it's weight was lowered to 2850...
This car is singled out because it IS the problem with ITS... It's an outlier on the classification list. Real data shows this... Theoretical data shows this... and on-track performance validates this... the same can NOT be said about any other car in ITS... RX-7s may perform, but the data shows they are classified correctly... the 944 does not compete... the data shows us why... 240Z... competes, data shows why...
This is about as UNBIASED a decision as the come...
If the Miata proves to be overclassified, the ITAC will recommend that it receive a restrictor (Single Inlet Restrictor) to bring it's HP output back in line with the rest of the class...Quote:
Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 14 2005, 07:12 PM
Since you can't add weight to it because of the cage, when I've got a real suspension on it with solid bushings and the non-spec roll bars, not to mention getting rid of the stock exhaust manifold and giving it a full IT build on the motor, watch out :smilie_pokal:
James
[snapback]60151[/snapback]
It is currently classified based on theoretical and known numbers, but with the assumption that someone may be able to get a little more out of it... Again, it has already been agreed that a restrictor would be recommended if there is data to warrent it...
Quote:
Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 12:31 PM
Snip--
You guys want to know why SM is SOOO much faster than it appears it should be??? Because there are HUNDREDS of them out there tweaking, tuning, adjusting, and then SHARING that information with each other... finding the EXACT correct tire pressures, the EXACT right caster/camber combo, etc., etc....
--Snip
On a spec Miata the exact right camber is....as much as you can get of the adjusters :P
But seriously, I get your point that on track performance is also highly dependant on the ultimate bolt on parts, the nuts behind the wheel and also behind the wrench.
James
Yes, how exactly do you demonstrate that a car is classed too heavy?? Couldn't it always be blamed on no one talented enough driving it, even if they in fact were? How about lack of participation? Or would that too be under not being developed/tweeked? After all who wants to build or buy a car when the best they can do with it is potentially mid pack at best? Wouldn't you use race results to determine this?Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 14 2005, 10:53 AM
However, if it's too high, it will take considerably longer to demonstrate that fact. A considerable amount of development time and effort, will have to be expended, by multiple drivers of the same car.
[snapback]60145[/snapback]
James
James,
That's EXACTLY why I said it wasn't a two-way street.
Jake,
Thanks! :023:
Darin,
Nicely put! :023:
NO... First off... it is the goal of the ITAC to make this a non-issue... If all cars are classified using a balanced process, then they should be pretty close to start with... This being done, if there is hard evidence (multiple dyno data, etc.), that shows that the output of the car was over/underestimated, then adjustments may need to be made...Quote:
Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 14 2005, 09:34 PM
Wouldn't you use race results to determine this?
James
[snapback]60182[/snapback]
If you see a pattern here, then you are catching on... The idea is to classify based on the potential of the CAR, and leave the rest up to you... Race results have many factors involved with them, the cars "potential" being only one of them... They can be an indicator, but they alone do not prove/disprove the need for a change...
I can not speak for horsepower after development, but you’re absolutely wrong on stock horsepower verses classified weight as the e36 is not the top car in such a comparison. (See data below) Any other method is subjective.
D. Jorden is also incorrect since the e36 was originally classified at 2850# which is the current weight.
1 911 T&E (70-72) 2485 175 14.20
2 Prelude non-SH (97-98) 2825 195 14.49
3 Del Sol V-tec (94-96) 2360 160 14.75
4 Calais/Achieva/Grand-Am (86-93)2655 180 14.75
5 Civic Si (99) 2360 160 14.75
6 Prelude (97-98) 2905 195 14.90
7 Corrado 2680 178 15.06
8 325 e36 (92-95) 2850 189 15.08
9 944S (87-88) 2850 188 15.16
10 Milano 3.0 (87-89) 2780 183 15.19
11 Prelude V-tec (93-96) 2905 190 15.29
12 Golf Vr6 (95-99.5) 2680 172 15.58
13 Jetta Vr6 (94-96) 2680 172 15.58
14 Cougar (99) 2650 170 15.59
15 Integra GSR (94-99) 2690 170 15.82
So then who provides the dyno results? What about when there are only a few cars, or even no cars running? Again, who want's to build a car when they know it's not competitve just to get the status quo to change? How many other cars are out there like the 944 that no one runs because it's not competitive, and it's not competitve because no one runs it? A real catch 22 if you ask me.Quote:
Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 02:51 PM
This being done, if there is hard evidence (multiple dyno data, etc.), that shows that the output of the car was over/underestimated, then adjustments may need to be made...
James
Quote:
Originally posted by Super Swift+Sep 14 2005, 09:58 PM-->WHO CARES about stock hp?? Other than as a starting point... All that matters is HP after it's developed, and some engines gain more than others... Because of that, some of this process HAS to be subjective... You are dreaming if you think it can be done under these conditions any other way...Quote:
I can not speak for horsepower after development, but you’re absolutely wrong on stock horsepower verses classified weight as the e36 is not the top car in such a comparison. .. (See data below) Any other method is subjective.[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-Super Swift@Sep 14 2005, 09:58 PM
D. Jorden is also incorrect since the e36 was originally classified at 2850# which is the current weight.
[snapback]60189[/snapback]
The car was classified at 2850, then revised to 2950, then, as described above, revised again to 2850lbs...
Again, WHO CARES... the car is UNDER WEIGHT, based on all data available, including that sent in by BMW owners themselves... I've detailed it all above, and again, much of this is based on data PROVIDED BY BMW owners...
Interesting that it's ONLY the BMW owners who don't see the issue...
Quote:
Originally posted by Super Swift@Sep 14 2005, 05:58 PM
I can not speak for horsepower after development, but you’re absolutely wrong on stock horsepower verses classified weight as the e36 is not the top car in such a comparison. (See data below) Any other method is subjective.
D. Jorden is also incorrect since the e36 was originally classified at 2850# which is the current weight.
1 911 T&E (70-72) 2485 175 14.20
2 Prelude non-SH (97-98) 2825 195 14.49
3 Del Sol V-tec (94-96) 2360 160 14.75
4 Calais/Achieva/Grand-Am (86-93)2655 180 14.75
5 Civic Si (99) 2360 160 14.75
6 Prelude (97-98) 2905 195 14.90
7 Corrado 2680 178 15.06
8 325 e36 (92-95) 2850 189 15.08
9 944S (87-88) 2850 188 15.16
10 Milano 3.0 (87-89) 2780 183 15.19
11 Prelude V-tec (93-96) 2905 190 15.2912 Golf Vr6 (95-99.5) 2680 172 15.58
13 Jetta Vr6 (94-96) 2680 172 15.58
14 Cougar (99) 2650 170 15.59
15 Integra GSR (94-99) 2690 170 15.82
[snapback]60189[/snapback]
Well, that's an interesting list, and it does make some points, but in an inadvertant way.
Whenever possible of course, the ideal situation is for a friendly competitor to share his dyno info, post build. You'd be surprised, I guess, on the information that has been submitted, by some top drivers in well prepped cars. Sometimes we see the same car on different dynos.
First, when that happens you have a real number to use, but secondly, there are also parallels you can draw that help get similar cars pinned down. Obviously, this job would be easy if we could secretly X-ray each car as it rolls onto the track for the race, and see the HP it will make! There are some known qualities certain makes and vintages display so that makes the job a bit easier.
I highlighted two cars on the list. They both share the same weight, but their power is off.....just slightly. Look at the difference in weights that result! So, a few hp can make a big difference, and that is what has happened with the E36.
It has been an overacheiver when it comes to making rear wheel power. Another car, which is at the top of the list, the 911, is the opposite. I own a 73 911E, and I can tell you that there aint no way to get that much more juice from that mechanicalyl injected flat 6. It will make a few more, but thats it. So that's reflected in how many we have seen built. An expensive build, for not much result, and it has to race against a car that puts DOWN 220 or so?? I think not, thankyou! And the reverse is true...we wouldn't have that many E36s running if the owners didn't think they were the car to have, would we?
The list shows, btw, how close things really are...a few HP either way and there are some big swings in the final number.
And, on that note, when the final number is very close, certain cars will do well at certain tracks, and vice versa. Isn't that all anyone can ask?
some cars respond better to an IT build than others...the only way to open that can is to have someone build every car in the book to the letter of the rules...i highly doubt that will happen...if there is an obvious overdog then they should buy a motor from a respected builder of them and dyno that one...and that will lead to having to dyno every car.....or adjust the other way...lighter rx 7's z's preludes etc :119:
i heard 217
now i hear 220
do i hear 225? anyone?
the mythical e36 engine just keeps making more power. sheesh. i wish mine got within 25 of the original babble....before the restrictor (and the restrictor DID make a difference). none of the top 4 bmw's in the marrs series makes anywhere near the numbers being thrown about here. all are very competitive and one of them was a arrc contender last year. gimme a break.
let's get back to some real data somewhere. how about those track records that are mostly held by rx7's? how about the stellar qualifiying time laid down by an acura at summit over labor day? you can play with the car numbers all day, but what is the performance where the rubber actually hits the road...
unless we all go out and start racing srf's, there will never be equal parity between the cars. there will NEVER be a formula that classifys cars so that completely different setups will cross the finish line together. there will always be perception of some cars being slow and some cars being fast. if a car is percieved as slow from the get go, nobody will build it to the max and it WILL be slow. if something is percieved as having potential, lots of folks will build them to the hilt, tuners will florish and viola, the car gets fast and even more of them are built. self fulfilling prophecy.
the sailboat racers have been chasing this "parity through rules" pipedream for 200 years with no good results. because of this "one-design" boats, or "spec racers" in car parlance, are now the most popular form of sailboat racing. geee, no wonder formula mazda, spec miata, spec rx7, spec racer ford, etc. make up the majority of most fields.
hey, how about every car classed in IT be precisely spec'd as to what modifications can be made? we are damn near a "spec e36" anyway. there has been so much bmw development there is basically just a checklist of known parts to built a fast one. :bash_1_:
marshall
How about the Bimmerworld dyno sheets sent to the CRB by Mr. Shafer?? They show 195hp AT THE WHEELS... 18% for drivetrain losses, and that's 237 flywheel hp... That's real enough data... or at least it was to Mr. Shafer when he sent it into the CRB in an effort to disprove the ITAC's notions on this cars potential...Quote:
Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 15 2005, 01:43 AM
let's get back to some real data somewhere. how about those track records that are mostly held by rx7's?[snapback]60219[/snapback]
Also, the ITAC has been told that the top prepped BMWs are making 7 more hp WITH the restrictor... You just have to know how to fool the system into not "seeing" the restrictor... something not that hard to do...
I don't care if we EVER see a lap time on ANY of these cars... that's the point guys... We are dealing with the mechanical performance parameters of the car... We are trying to equate the PERFORMANCE POTENTIALS of all these IT cars... NOT the car + driver + track conditions + fuel used + weather + track length +..... That doesn't work...
So with very few or no examples running how do you tell if the inital setting was optomistic/pessimistic? Outside of race results how do judge chassie potential. I'm sure some cars that are classified require the builder to make everything, for example suspension bushings. Also, what has to be done to tune a chassie to be competitve is this also not part of the cars potential? I guess my main beef is the sort of chicken and egg problem associated with the less than common cars, no one races them because they're not competitve and they're not competitive because no one races them. So then how do you break the chain?Quote:
Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 02:51 PM
--Snip--
This being done, if there is hard evidence (multiple dyno data, etc.), that shows that the output of the car was over/underestimated, then adjustments may need to be made...
If you see a pattern here, then you are catching on... The idea is to classify based on the potential of the CAR, and leave the rest up to you... Race results have many factors involved with them, the cars "potential" being only one of them... They can be an indicator, but they alone do not prove/disprove the need for a change...
[snapback]60186[/snapback]
James
Well, some cars just aren't popular, and are considered uphill builds. To some, that's EXACTLY what they're looking for. They search for the oddball, the overlooked, the forgotten, the never before developed, so that they can be the first to walk the path and be the pioneer.Quote:
Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 15 2005, 12:57 AM
I guess my main beef is the sort of chicken and egg problem associated with the less than common cars, no one races them because they're not competitve and they're not competitive because no one races them. So then how do you break the chain?
James
[snapback]60228[/snapback]
Guys like Jeff with his TR8, and his friend Ron with his Jensen, both strong contributers to this BBS.
Ron admits his is an uphill battle, but, he also sees considerable potential, and likes the light weight. Lots of eyes are watching, will this car be one of the contenders in ITS? He hopes so, and so do lots of champions of the underdog.
He just might be on to something, and if he is, he has done it...he's broken the chain......
Point being that there are lots of guys out there who know what the "right" cars are, but vote with their hearts and go other ways. If they are successful, suddenly the oddball becomes the overdog. When the E36 was first classed, I can remember hearing skeptical comments about the weight, and how is such a big car going to compete with cars like the 7 and the Z.......
Acutally the flywheel hp may be more than that. I understand that BMW's may not be the most efficient in the drive train department. A friend of mine just dyno'ed his Z3 post DASC and used a fudge factor of 21% Or maybe it's just because we're using the atiquated e-30 rear suspension.Quote:
Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 08:31 PM
How about the Bimmerworld dyno sheets sent to the CRB by Mr. Shafer?? They show 195hp AT THE WHEELS... 18% for drivetrain losses, and that's 237 flywheel hp... That's real enough data... or at least it was to Mr. Shafer when he sent it into the CRB in an effort to disprove the ITAC's notions on this cars potential...
----Snip----
James
Quote:
Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 14 2005, 11:03 PM
Well, some cars just aren't popular, and are considered uphill builds. To some, that's EXACTLY what they're looking for. They search for the oddball, the overlooked, the forgotten, the never before developed, so that they can be the first to walk the path and be the pioneer.
......
Point being that there are lots of guys out there who know what the "right" cars are, but vote with their hearts and go other ways. If they are successful, suddenly the oddball becomes the overdog. When the E36 was first classed, I can remember hearing skeptical comments about the weight, and how is such a big car going to compete with cars like the 7 and the Z.......
[snapback]60231[/snapback]
Some of us just like :bash_1_:
James
"Life IS pain!"
--The Dread Pirate Roberts
Well, I just can't stay out of it any longer.
Earlier this year, a BMW WITH restrictor plate smashed its own track record at Road Atlanta, In July, it was about 92 degrees.
I've seen what this car has at the wheels, and its a legal car. It has ALOT of money in it and its extremely well driven, but its legal. People think it isn't, but to date nobody has proved otherwise.
Now, I had an Integra GSR that was ITS prepped. Fully built OPM motor and tuned on the exact same dyno as the above mentioned BMW. The best we could do was 172hp at the wheels. Forget about torque... 129.
I'm not going to say what the BMW had, but I will say I deemed the Integra hopeless at that point and sold it to a Honda Challenge guy. The BEST that car will get, no matter how much money you throw at it, is about 180whp. Anything higher than that and you are cheating.
Make no mistake about it, 172whp from a 1994 Integra GSR is pretty stout, but its dog meat to a half-assed 325, forget about the *good* ones.
So... What do we do about it?
Well, its not easy, but here's what you do...
1. Add about 100lbs to the BMW and call it soup. Leave it alone after that and concentrate on letting the rest of the cars get faster instead of slowing the BMW down, because frankly, it isn't going to happen.
2. Reduce the weight on a couple of current cars. The RX7s are carrying ballast, sometimes alot, and so are the GSRs. There is no reason for the GSR, with no torque and Civic brakes to weigh close to 2700lbs. It needs to be about 100lbs less than that. The Preludes are too heavy too.
3. Look at classing some new cars. The Integra Type R comes to mind. Less than 200hp and short on torque. Don't be scared of this car, its just a slightly better GSR. At current GSR weight this car *might* be a match for the BMW at 2900+lbs.
The Celica GTS should be coming up soon as well.
4. Monitor and adjust accordingly.
Look guys, I watched Tom Fowler just plain drive the wheels off what is likely the worlds fastest ITS Prelude at Road Atlanta earlier this year. He was wringing that car out, and he's one hell of a driver. The end result... 1.5 seconds slower than the fastest BMW. Slower than several BMWs as a matter of fact, but on par with some RX7s and 240s.
My point, stop concentrating on slowing the BMW down and start pulling lead out of 4 or 5 other chassis in the class. It won't necessarily solve the problem, but it will certainly help. The BMW is there, for better or worse, and there's just no reason for RX7 and Integra drivers to be bolting 100lbs of lead in their cars when they are an underdog WITHOUT it.
I know its not as simple as it sounds, but you have to start somewhere.
BTW - I agree that the Lexus and Toyota products mentioned above are too much for ITS. Just because one cow is out of the barn doesn't mean the door should get propped open.
Quote:
Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 15 2005, 02:21 AM
Acutally the flywheel hp may be more than that. I understand that BMW's may not be the most efficient in the drive train department. A friend of mine just dyno'ed his Z3 post DASC and used a fudge factor of 21% Or maybe it's just because we're using the atiquated e-30 rear suspension.
James
[snapback]60232[/snapback]
Interesting comment. Doing a little data analysis, and assuming that there's a 21% driveline loss, rather than the 18% that Darin suggested. That's another 10+ FHP (Flywheel HP). Or, looked at another way, a 30%+ increase over stock, in IT tune. And that's based on the 195 WHP number from the dyno sheets that Mr. Shafer sent in. That translates to ~247 FHP. If we use a CONSERVATIVE estimate of 210 WHP for a maxed-out car, that translates to over 265 FHP (using this same 21% loss factor, and over 256 FHP using Darin's number of 18%). That's a 35-40% FHP gain (depending on which driveline loss # you use) from an IT tune. THAT is a big gain, and it only gets bigger, if the cars are actually making more than 210 WHP.
But, I agree w/ Jake, it's not just about peak hp or peak torque, it's about the area under the curve. I think that you'd see a much more telling picture if you looked at say a 3500 - 4000 rpm range (say 4k - 7.5k, or 4k - 8k), and took the area under the HP and torque curves. Then, correlate those data to lap times on various types of tracks (twisty, "handling" tracks, as well as wide-open "horsepower" tracks). While it's just an academic excercise, I think it would be interesting.
As far as 'getting it right', out of the ITAC process, I'll say, w/ a faily high level of confidence, that it's probably closer than it is now. At the very least, if all the cars in the ITCS are 'run through' (which it's my understanding, is happening), everyone gets treated the same. If we're going to cotinue to cling to the 'no guarantee' concept, I don't think anyone can ask (or expect) more than that. It's objective, and pretty much what I've been advocating from the very earliest of discussion about a formula or process (even if it's just a simple lb/hp ratio). And cars like the E36 would probably still be ahead of the game, as I think a 35-40+% gain from an IT tune, is probably on the high side. I'm guessing 20-25% gain is more the norm. BTW, that would predict the E36 w/ the M50 motor at between about 225-235 FHP. And Mr. Shafer's number suggest that you're already on (or past) the high end w/ a "shopping cart" car.
What I find interesting, or I suppose I should say discouraging, is that there are folks who have the data that can put this rwhp issue to rest. There are two BMWs in the SE that are considerably faster than the rest of the field (have a look at the VIR results) and certainly lay down what I would consider benchmarks for the car. They are current SCCA racers and certainly have the data needed to make heads or tails of the hp potential of the 2.5 I6 in the BMW. But, they do not contribute. Perhaps they do not read here, but I'm certain that someone that knows them reads here and possibly has the information themselves.
I, along with probably many other car enthusaists that become SCCA racers, have owned an E36 BMW. And, having owned the car and driven a few others, I know that the weight of the car is not correct. Most cars in the class are within a few percent of their street weight. Hell, my own car appears to be classed higher than its street trim weight, but that is another story. How many cars are classed at 10-11% less than street trim? There might be a few, but certainly the car that is perceived as an overdog shound not have this weight classification. Class it at 3050lbs or so, remove the restrictor (didn't appear to do anything anyhow to the fast ones), and see how it does.
Ron
PS-Glad to see the IT board is back with some healthy discussion, I had to go over to sm.com for a bit to get my reading in, but I think I might be back!
At the July Road Atlanta SARRC:
Qualifying:
ITS Chris Newberry 240SX 1:43.115
ITS Tony Burdette BMW 1:44.060
ITS Jeff Buice Bmw 1:44.634
Results:
ITS Jeff Buice BMW 1:43.535
ITS Chris Newberry 240SX 1:43.599
ITS Dan Shaver BMW 1:45.279
It was a great race but more than 50 percent of the field was a 325...there are just lots of good developed cars out there...
The only thing that can be justified in your post is that there is the large number of Spec Miata’s and the progress they have made. There is now a large number of E36’s, several really good development programs, and an abundance of really good go-fast parts. And this might be a shocker, we BMW drivers do share setup information.Quote:
Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 03:31 PM
You guys want to know why SM is SOOO much faster than it appears it should be??? Because there are HUNDREDS of them out there tweaking, tuning, adjusting, and then SHARING that information with each other... finding the EXACT correct tire pressures, the EXACT right caster/camber combo, etc., etc.... The same might be said about the CRX... Lot's of them out there, usually driven by friendly guys who talk to each other...
Interesting that the members of the ITAC all consider there cars to be classified about right. Andy - RX7; Darren - 240 SX. Might be time for a little more diversity on the ITAC?Quote:
If you run the numbers on the RX-7, both theoretical and actual dyno numbers, you'd find that it's classified as the process defines. The same is true of the 240Z. The 944 is too heavy... The 944S is a bit too light... The 240SX is close, but will require an 10/10ths effort to make that weight... Several cars are overweight at this point, some are slightly underweight at this point... Some are in the wrong class all-together... The same pattern exists in all the classes...
Quote:
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 15 2005, 09:05 AM
Interesting that the members of the ITAC all consider there cars to be classified about right. Andy - RX7; Darren - 240 SX. Might be time for a little more diversity on the ITAC?
[snapback]60246[/snapback]
You know Bruce, I may not agree w/ those guys all the time, but the last thing that I would think, is that they're using their positions to promote their own cars, or hold a competitor's car back. That was a really low-class comment. :angry: You obviously have lost whatever objectivity that you had in this matter.
BTW, I think Andy runs a SM now.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 15 2005, 09:26 AM
You know Bruce, I may not agree w/ those guys all the time, but the last thing that I would think, is that they're using their positions to promote their own cars, or hold a competitor's car back. That was a really low-class comment. :angry: You obviously have lost whatever objectivity that you had in this matter.
BTW, I think Andy runs a SM now.
[snapback]60248[/snapback]
Bill, too bad that is the way you percieve it. Just calling it like I see it.
I've never been objective when it comes to this topic.
If Andy is no longer driving an RX7, when did he quite being an advocate for the car?
Edit to add a few more comments! :bash_1_:
I can't believe that we are having this conversation again but Marshall does bring up a point that hasn't had the attention that it deserve in past re-hashing of the arguments.Quote:
Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 15 2005, 01:43 AM
... if a car is percieved as slow from the get go, nobody will build it to the max and it WILL be slow. if something is percieved as having potential, lots of folks will build them to the hilt, tuners will florish and viola, the car gets fast and even more of them are built. self fulfilling prophecy. ...
K
You obviously need glasses...Quote:
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 15 2005, 01:45 PM
Just calling it like I see it.
[snapback]60250[/snapback]
If you had actually understood what I've been saying... I wouldn't have to say the following again... the class is DEFINED by the cars mentioned in that post, which means, by default, they are going to be "classified correctly"... of course they "fit"... And, every car that has been adjusted or classified since is going to "fit"... the 240Z and the RX-7 WERE the best examples of the class... right up until the BMW E36 was classified... The VAST MAJORITY of the cars in the class are either close, or could be made to be close, from a wt/hp ratio and classification process perspective, to these two cars... It would be very difficult, it no impossible, however, to define the class in terms of the BMW and equate everyone else to that... It's about 1.3 to 1.5 wt/pwr points better than anything else in the class at it's current weight. You just can't make all these other cars that light. So, the obvious alternative is to bring the cars below up to the line, and the cars above back down to the line...
Let me put this in as simple a form as I can so you'll hopefully understand... The 240Z and the RX-7 were chosen as the representative cars in the class. Their parameters were analyzed, and their competition potential was determined... Since there are many of them, and they have been around awhile, and there is lot's of data on them, we think we have a good handle on what they are capable of.
A target wt/pwr ratio was determined based on these cars. Adders are used to adjust for the differences in brakes, gear ratios, suspension, etc... The classification process is based on these numbers...
THEREFORE, these cars "fit" because the process was borne USING THEIR SPECS... SAVVY??? :rolleyes:
Looking at the rest of the class... some cars are below the line, and a few are above...
You happen to fall in the later catagory... deal with that as you will...
And, for the record, the ONLY two times the 240SX has even been talked about on the ITAC, in any kind of official sense, was once because the brake specs were listed wrong (no 240SX ever came with 295mm front brakes...), and recently when we looked at all the cars in the class and analyzed their classification specs vs. the process... You talk to ANYONE on the ITAC or the CRB and they'll tell you that I am ADAMANT about abstaining from any official discussion concerning this particular car, specifically because I DO own one and I don't want the credibility of the ITAC questioned because of a conflict of interest...
Andy is the same way, as is the rest of the group... The only thing Andy has ever done concerning the RX-7 is given us as real-world performance data from the best preparred RX-7s in the country. (would be nice if everyone were as willing to give honest information... )
Nice try, though... :023:
Thats from the SARRC race. The fast guys were in the Pro-IT.Quote:
Originally posted by zracre@Sep 15 2005, 11:27 AM
At the July Road Atlanta SARRC:
Qualifying:
ITS Chris Newberry 240SX 1:43.115
ITS Tony Burdette BMW 1:44.060
ITS Jeff Buice Bmw 1:44.634
Results:
ITS Jeff Buice BMW 1:43.535
ITS Chris Newberry 240SX 1:43.599
ITS Dan Shaver BMW 1:45.279
Check the Pro IT results and you'll see BMW times in the 1:40s and some ITA times nearly as fast as the ITS times you posted above.
Fowler ran high 1:41s that same weekend in the ECR in his Prelude. Would have easily won him the SARRC race.
You can't pick and choose data and call something a good race. I had a race at VIR earlier this year where I damned near lapped up to 2nd place in my class by the time the checkered had flown. Does that mean my car needs to be moved to ITA? No, it means none of the fast guys showed up.
Garbage in, Garbage out.
BTW - I don't drive an ITS car and never will. Too expensive for me to enjoy it. But I do think the classing is all messed up and is killing a bunch of otherwise good cars at the expense of one very expensive to buy/build/run Overdog. Thats bad news for all of us, and it needs to be fixed.
JMO.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 15 2005, 09:45 AM
Bill, too bad that is the way you percieve it. Just calling it like I see it.
I've never been objective when it comes to this topic.
If Andy is no longer driving an RX7, when did he quite being an advocate for the car?
Edit to add a few more comments! :bash_1_:
[snapback]60250[/snapback]
Certainly your right Bruce. I submit that your lack of objectivity has colored your perception. And your original comment indicated that Andy was still running an RX7, and that he was using his position to gain an advantage for his car. Those are some pretty heavy accusations to throw around. Especially since there's not much to support it. And, since you haven't noticed, the only people that DON'T think the E36 is too light, are the folks that are running them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 15 2005, 02:37 PM
you haven't noticed, the only people that DON'T think the E36 is too light, are the folks that are running them.
[snapback]60255[/snapback]
I'm not running one, you are right. But still, I say again:
"I, along with probably many other car enthusaists that become SCCA racers, have owned an E36 BMW. And, having owned the car and driven a few others, I know that the weight of the car is not correct. Most cars in the class are within a few percent of their street weight. Hell, my own car appears to be classed higher than its street trim weight, but that is another story. How many cars are classed at 10-11% less than street trim? There might be a few, but certainly the car that is perceived as an overdog shound not have this weight classification. Class it at 3050lbs or so, remove the restrictor (didn't appear to do anything anyhow to the fast ones), and see how it does."
Ron
Ditto what Ron said. Would a BMW driver please justify the 2850 weight for the car? It is just flat out wrong.
Jake, thanks for the kind words above. By the way, Dr. Earp has ventured over into enemy territory (SM) while we sort the Jensen, only to find out that SMs can be as problematic as our rusty, leaky old Brit cars.....or maybe it is just us......are you coming down for the ARRC this year? Like Kirk I may come spectate...might even race, we'll see.
Do you find if frustrating that the argument you used to justify the increased performance of the Spec Miata was used to explain one of the many reasons the E36 has evolved into the “omnipotent” machine that is has? That was the extent of the entire first paragraph of my first post this morning.Quote:
Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 15 2005, 10:30 AM
You obviously need glasses...
If you had actually understood what I've been saying... I wouldn't have to say the following again...
My suggestion that the ITAC needs more diversity appears to have been overlooked. I'll be the second person on this thread to ask how and where does one sign up for the ITAC?
If I understand the jist of this thread correctly, most are of the opinion that the e36 is under weight. Look at some facts. The SpeedSource RX7s were dominate until SpeedSource quit developing them....5 years ago? The 240Z dominated until 4 years ago? when development basically ended?(and by the way, I think Chett's old blue/orange car is still faster than his e36....IN HIS HANDS!!) So we have a couple of extremely capable drivers that could take any of our cars and run considerably quicker than we could....would that make our cars underweight? 99% of us that race cannot drive our cars to their maximun potential, but you want to slow all the cars because there are a couple that spend the time and money and happen to be able to outdrive us? I don't think that fair either. If the ITAC is going to do anything, I think it should be to look at average cars...which most are...and disregard the few over and under the curve. :bash_1_:
An interesting side about the lap times posted for the July RA SARRC. About 4 years ago, when I started racing, Tony Burdett was turning those same lap times in his e30 325!! The RX7s and 240Zs were about 2-3 seconds quicker. Chuck