Durn, totally forgot about that one. Wow. Now those were some repairs right there.
Printable View
Durn, totally forgot about that one. Wow. Now those were some repairs right there.
Appears to be a fine line don't ya think?
I agree guys, a straight up repair after a failure, I'm fine with.
No, I really don't see a fine line there at all. Rules say repairs have to be exactly as it was before, unless you can produce the paperwork from the factory (e.g., TSB) supporting it.
It's really not that fine a line at all; suggesting otherwise is condoning that whole "twisted interpretation" mindset.
Another checkbox for condoning the mindset. If you accept that this kind of "repair" is legal after a failure, illustrate to me how you're going to be able to prove there was a failure in the first place...?Quote:
I agree guys, a straight up repair after a failure, I'm fine with.
Nope, not a fine line at all. - GA
I read that whole tread again last night. I wasn't happy about it this stuff then, and not happy about it now, but it does appear there is a factory mandated repair that involves the welding of plates on the cracked areas. I am still concerned, as are you apparently, about a factory fix that improves performance/reliability although I am not sure that is illegal.
But I see their point. If there is a failure, you have to fix it. Welding is an acceptable means by which we all fix stress cracks.
So, if the minimum amount of factory approved welding is done to a fix, I don't see how that is not legal.
Thus it is a fine line between repair and reinforce. You can only do enough to fix, or what the factory TSB says you can do, and no more. Some of that stuff on the Autotechnic page was so far out of line as to not even be within the realm of discussion.
I think what people are looking for is a copy of the official documentation from BMW that shows all the details on what to look for, what part numbers are required and how to fix the flaw. A true TSB with 'repair' terminology.
What some have become leary of is a proactive 'reinforcement'. Just because a BMW part number exists, doesn't mean it's a factory mandated repair. I think in general terms, we can all agree on that.
Knowing some of the guys who have done this, I am sure the documentation exists, but it would be nice to see it. This is something that could become specifically LEGAL on the spec line if someone was motivated with the proper docs.
Agreed. Agreed (message too short?)
From what I can read with GA's post, he wants to know if it was a true repair. If Greg did any welding to the body or subframe of his car, how would anyone know if it was a repair or a reinforcement? I use this only as an example. I'll bet that Marshall Lytle probably has the BMW part numbers for the reinforcement plates. As for the BMW documation of the repair, I'll look in the TIS for starts. Back to the proof, how can anyone prove anything unless no repairs are made without the expressed approval of the SCCA tech? You couldn't use photos because it could be someone elses car in the photo.
Dan, I agree with you on that part. Taht is where we just have to trust people not to cheat, like we do with lots of other stuff on our cars.
From the other thread, the part numbers are:
41-00-2-256-495
41-00-2-256-496
41-11-2-256-497
41-11-2-256-498
I looked these up in the ETK (okay, the online one, realoem), and they are listed only for the M3s (coupes, sedans, and convertibles), but not for any other E36s.
That doesn't mean that there isn't a service bulletin in the TIS though that recommends their use on a 325. I don't have the TIS handy, not since I switched computers, but I'd love for you to look it up.
Interestingly, the Z3s have a totally different rear suspension issue that still results in unibody tearing, but not at the subframe mounts. Although there are a few reinforcement kits available in the aftermarket, BMW has never issued any fix of any sort for it, or even acknowledged that the problem exists. So, I'm just waiting for it to happen, and when it does, I'll have to replace the whole trunk floor with new parts. Kinda sucks.
BMW TIS 41 03 03 (025) Very well documented within BMW but nearly impossible to find outside the BMW network.
BMW Documentation
I have an E-46 and that document was the first one I choose. That document is 9 pages and lists every item to use including a part number for rubber gloves to use while applying the finish undercoating. This repair is very common.
But Rob, unless I'm mistaken we're discussing the E36, and the mystery factory repair. I think Autotecnic showed pictures of it on their site. So do you have that bulletin?
Just to follow up, Dan: yes. This has (obviously) been debated for years, and I've yet to see anyone come up with factory documentation specifically proving that BMW considers this to be a normal, every repair procedure on a non-M3 E36 chassis.
No one disagrees it's a wart on the car.
No one disagrees it's a good idea.
No one disagrees it fixes problems on the car.
No one disagrees it's a "performance advantage" in that it fixes a common flaw on the car.
However, no one's bothered to provide the proof that it's legal in Improved Touring. To do so would require the aforementioned factory-authorized documentation. Provide proof, we mumble "mea culpa" and shut up...
Ball's been in the BMW court for several years now... - GA
I see, I didn't understand that this was just the 1st page.
Here's the whole thing for anyone who wants to look:
http://forum.e46fanatics.com/attachm...2&d=1193718036
http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showpos...9&postcount=23
But ...
This thread was about E36s, and the part numbers that are being used are different. I frankly think that this document allows for E46s to do this sort of reinforcement. But I see no allowance for it to be done to an E36, even after a failure.
BMW is VERY tight with this information.(E-36 and E-46) I was lucky enough to work within the BMW group for four years. A simple google search on BMW subframe class action suits will show a lot of information available through various law firms and customers alike. These TIS documents are not public information nor are they intended to be linked here. BMW has a team of attorneys that have been known for making mountains out of mole hills over much simpler issues such as BMW logos used without proper approvals. Needless to say I have access to this information but I can't afford the legal bills if it were to escalate to BMW corporate.
I have not needed to fix my E-46 yet but if I do I will unless someone here has a better solution other than order a body in white.
Can anyone offer a better way to fix a torn subframe or a ripped out shock mount?
Nobody else has had to weld something on their car? I can"t remember a weekend that Smarty wasnt under someones car welding for a case of Pabst.
I think no one here would have an issue with you following these instructions for your E46. The rulebook says:
"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."
Such a procedure, on your car, would be in concurrence with factory procedures, and would be specifically authorized by the manufacturer for repair. As long as your car was built before 2/00, I guess, since that's the limit of applicability of this bulletin.
But doing a similar thing on an E36, or reinforcing the trunk floor of a Z3 because they tear apart at the diff mount, wouldn't be legal without such a document.
BMW might not want these documents to circulate to the owner population, but as you know, most racers don't have "legitimate access" to them, and yet, the racing rules require us to have them in our possession. So, we're good at looking for them.
Josh, you've followed the Z3 trunk mount repair threads. Have you ever found any evidence that BMW even documents this much less has internal memo's for dealer service personel to access? I've long ago come to the conclusion that it either doesn't exist or is so closely held it might as well not exist. Unlike my employer, you can't file under the freedom of information act and get these kinds of proprietary reports. I'm sure it'd be easier to get Air Force reports on the fatigue life on an F-15 airframe than how the factory wants these repairs made.
I had the rear bracket to the muffler break off of my (street) Z3. That's like four spot welds can't hold the stock muffler for more than 89k miles? There's maybe double that many spot welds in the trunk holding the bracket for the off set differential mount. This is all that holds the differential from pulling away from the trunk. When it goes one would have to be really lucky not to wrap it into a pretzal, and just becaue there's not manual or paper trail we've got to throw it away, or go race E-Production:eek:
James
I agree. And I think the same is true for any E36 repair documents.
All we can do is repair to original specs. That means we can buy brand new sheet metal, and spot weld it in the same way as the originals. The good news is that those trunk floor panels are still available ... no need for a body-in-white should it happen. It's definitely a more extensive (and expensive!) repair than a broken 944 control arm would be, but should it happen, it won't be the end of the world.
BTW, Rob, I'm sure the same is true for the E46 ... even if that bulletin didn't exist, replacement original body parts (vs. smaller reinforcements) could be purchased and welded in.
We did have the front sway bar mount tear and we were able to buy the original replacement mount from BMW and spot weld it back in place. That type of repair is easy and returns the car to factory spec.
In the case of the E-36 subframe the cost to replace the floor pan would exceed the cost of some IT cars in their entirety.
Have you had to repair the rear sway bar mounts on your Z3 yet? If so, did you drop the subframe and replace the entire trailing arm or just weld the thin tab back on? If not, what will happen when they fail?.
With reguard to posting internal BMW documentation, I would be weary. The link I supplied was posted by someone else on Bimmerforums. Have you ever read the disclaimer when you log on to the BMW site? Scary stuff. Tightly held is an understatement.
No. FoI (Freedom of Information Act) applies to records held by various Federal government agencies, not to private/public corporations. BMW is fully within its rights to withhold this information as proprietary.
To the issue at hand:
Those documents that Josh linked to are fine example of what exactly one needs to support other-than-returning-to-factory specs mods/repairs. As a tech inspector and a competitor, I would accept those as reasonable proof of appropriate and legal repairs. As long as Rob's car is manufactured within the dates specified in that bulletin, he's golden to do this work. And, frankly, I'm OK with him doing in in advance as a "prepair"; after all, how can one prove that the parts were installed as a repair or not? The mod - as detailed in that "TSB" - is legal, regardless of when or why it was installed.
However, absent such a TSB, this repair is never legal. And, the TSB above does not cover the secondary outstanding issue at hand (and prior), that being the rear subframe tears on the E36, and E46s subsequent to 02/00.
Further, regardless of whether BMW is tight-lipped about this repair or not, the responsibility is on THE COMPETITOR to prove it's legal. If you get protested for such a repair, stating that "it's legal but BMW won't give me a copy of the bulletin" is wholly insufficient as supporting evidence. You WILL be found to be contrary to the regulations absent this proof.
I think Josh summarized the situation quite well:
- "All chassis/structural/electrical repair...shall be in concurrence with factory procedures, specifications, and dimensions..."
- Such a procedure, on your [E46] car [built before 02/00, inclusive] would be in concurrence with factory procedures...
- But doing a similar thing on an E36, or reinforcing the trunk floor of a Z3 because they tear apart at the diff mount, wouldn't be legal without such a document.
To the rules. Consult your workshop manual and technical service bulletins.
True, and those repairs could very well be illegal. And, in fact, I've mentioned that to Bob a couple of times, making sure he understands he should do the minimum required to "repair" and not "reinforce."Quote:
I can"t remember a weekend that Smarty wasnt under someones car welding for a case of Pabst.
But prevalence of a modification does not equate legality.
That's unfortunate, but that's the rules. If you don't agree with them, work towards getting them changed. Maybe you can talk the CRB into a spec line allowance for such a repair kit? If your car is not included in the above TSB you could include it as supporting evidence of a significant problem with the car, and you might get an allowance.Quote:
In the case of the E-36 subframe the cost to replace the floor pan would exceed the cost of some IT cars in their entirety.
As we've noted many, many, many times before on this board, you pick your cars ("warts and all" is what we say). Yes, it sucks to have to repair the chassis of your BMW annually (or more frequently), but it also sucks to have to replace your Rabbit front hubs every three races, and your 944 control arms every few races, and your Saturn and NX2000 rear wheel bearings every few races. Sure, those examples do tend to pale in comparison to what BMW drivers are facing, but the modifications you're suggesting to "fix" your issue(s) are no less illegal than installing Audi hubs, cast aluminum control arms, or illegal alternate replacement bearings, respectively.
Warts. We all got 'em, just in various levels...
GA
Further, I suspect that replacing the entire fllor of the car is overly invasive, and that there are more expedient methods.
Rob, I remember you posted pics and captions of the underchassis repair/welding on your E36. So, what you're saying (I'm getting confused with E36s, E46s and Z3s) is that you have the documentation for that procedure, but won't let anyone see it for fear of legal repercussions from BMW?
I don't use a rear swaybar, partially for this reason. The swaybar mounts won't break, and it's also less load on the trunk floor, so maybe it'll last longer. If one can get the setup to work without this risk, it's altogether better.
But if I were and the mounts were to break, I'd have just welded the thin tab back on to the trailing arm.
It's not just the chassis mount that needs to be stonger, the metal tab on the trailing-arm has been know to break. John Huestis rolled his M-roady at Thunderhill turn 3 because the mount broke on the trailing arm. I think I'm going to weld a new thicker tab on my new arms before I install them. Also, the box the bumper mounts to would make an ideal place to mount the rear bar to.
James
Sigh...
James, if you're gonna write stuff like that in a contentious topic like this, how about adding a little * to your statement that says "BUT, please note I'm in ITE, which basically means "Everything", and that I understand this mod is not legal per the ITCS for all other IT classes...?
I bought a black / black used 323i sport suspension 5 speed.
I was surprised at how "rare" a manual transmission is on these cars.
Why anyone would want an automatic is beyond me.
Thanks for all the feedback. I've been enjoying the new ride.
No tears in the trunk or sub-frame problems. The car is in really good shape.
Maybe it'll be in ITS in a few years if it holds up on the street!
:eclipsee_steering:
Oh, and right now there's no RR shocks on it, and the washer bottle is still there.
Congrats man! Those are sweet rides, the E46 is a cool looking car and that is sweet motor in it.
Irish Mike races one in ITS by the way and it is fast.
Congrats! I'm digging my E46 M3. Those cars just have great proportions...and they sit well on the wheels...great stance. (A german thing it seems)
Greg, you do have a point about it being off of Tom's topic. I appologise for anything I did to help degenerate this thread into a B**tch session about weakness's in our cars and grey area fixes. Getting acess to the legally required documents involves an act of corporate espionage, which shouldn't be. I also started a new thread to address these concerns and placed it where it belongs, in the rules section.
Hey Tom,
Congratulations on the sweet new ride. I can tell you one reason for the slush-box, women who refuse to learn to coordinate both feet. I happen to be married to one, and she's never going to change. So 50% of our vehicles have automatics, and the other half are mine alone and happen to be bratty roadsters.
James