Can someone give me the straight (or straightest possible) story on the cam/head at Tech, and why there were no E36 BMWs in the SARRC races?
Printable View
Can someone give me the straight (or straightest possible) story on the cam/head at Tech, and why there were no E36 BMWs in the SARRC races?
I can't answer your question, but wanted to mention that I don't remember seeing any in either the CCPS or ECR enduros on Monday, either.
------------------
Doug "Lefty" Franklin
NutDriver Racing
There were 2 in the ECR. I wasn't there for the SARRC, so I don't have any first hand info on the protest.Quote:
Originally posted by CaptainWho:
I can't answer your question, but wanted to mention that I don't remember seeing any in either the CCPS or ECR enduros on Monday, either.
Grafton
Can't answer the tech shed question.
One of the orange ARC cars was actually there for the SARRC races, but it broke during the test day on Friday.
Here's the word that was running around the paddock. Chet Wittel ran a 2:12 at VIR. Some think the E36 is not capable of that in IT trim. Someone shows up at CMP with a stock E36 cylinder head and cams. Protests all E36s running the SARRC, and they have a choice of tearing down and proving legality or going home.
That's the word anyway, that was running like gossip through the paddock.
Jeff
Actually an E36 is capable of more at VIR once we get the shocks right.Quote:
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Here's the word that was running around the paddock. Chet Wittel ran a 2:12 at VIR. Some think the E36 is not capable of that in IT trim. Someone shows up at CMP with a stock E36 cylinder head and cams. Protests all E36s running the SARRC, and they have a choice of tearing down and proving legality or going home.
Jeff
Wittel's car broke on test day and he wasn't going to race but was actually still protested. The protestor couldn't come up with the whole bond so it was dropped.
And in fact, you do NOT have a choice of "going home" once you're protested, you have to stay and see it through.
Pool yer money boys, the E36 is a $%@#* to dismantle.
------------------
katman
Especially when the SOM's let the engine builder set the teardown bond.Quote:
Originally posted by kthomas:
Pool yer money boys, the E36 is a $%@#* to dismantle.
Yikes! What a horrible attitude to take!! 'You can't *afford* to protest us'?Quote:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Pool yer money boys, the E36 is a $%@#* to dismantle.</font>
Legality by financial blackmail? Man, I hope that attitude's not very prevalent in the ranks...
I was under the impression that the teardown bond was a mutually agreeable number?
Letting any engine builder set the teardown bond for their own motor is counterproductive to the very nature of a protest, which is to establish the legality/illegality of the motor.
If a builder thinks his teardown time is worth $3K because his motor costs $8K, where is the fairness in that?
It wouldn't be hard for someone who was knowingly going to protest a certain make to find the flat rate hours required to remove a head, cam, etc.
Engine builders have no right or reason to be able to gouge a protestor as a deterrent.
------------------
Chris Wire
Team Wire Racing
ITS Mazda RX7 #35
[email protected]
Kurt, I don't really know anything about the motor in the 325. Why is it so expensive to tear down? I know that from car to car, things can vary (obviously), just wondering what the difficulty was with the E36.
The rumors were flying on Saturday. I guess it would have been nice if one of the E36s (I thought there were several others that left) had gone ahead with it just to shut up those rumors.
FASTER than 2:12 at VIR? That's most impressive, although I have to say, at that point, does the E36 really belong in ITS? That's already 3 seconds faster than any other make of car has gone, or probably can go......
Thanks.
Jeff
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Wire:
I was under the impression that the teardown bond was a mutually agreeable number?
Letting any engine builder set the teardown bond for their own motor is counterproductive to the very nature of a protest, which is to establish the legality/illegality of the motor.
If a builder thinks his teardown time is worth $3K because his motor costs $8K, where is the fairness in that?
It wouldn't be hard for someone who was knowingly going to protest a certain make to find the flat rate hours required to remove a head, cam, etc.
Engine builders have no right or reason to be able to gouge a protestor as a deterrent.
I disagree. Why ? Because I wouldnt want someone I didnt trust to rebuild my engine, regarding cost directly!
Theoretically I get a new motor $8k later- I go to a race and you protest me at the end of the race. I wouldnt want someone who is going to do the work for $5k to do it because of multiple reasons including decking/shaving,porting etc.. all legal under IT rules to a degree..
I hear what your saying about it being bullshit but there really isnt a way around it.
An e36 is a very hard motor to get the head off of and then reset the timing..I dount $8k but $2k wouldnt suprise me.
if you are so sure the head and cam is illegal then you'll get your money back when its taken apart. isn't that true??so come on guys put your money where your mouth is.
on the other hand i wouldn't want my new engine taken apart found legal and don't have enough money in the bond to put it back together .with the performance it had before. just my 2cents. let be fair to everybody out there.protester & protestee.
------------------
steve saney
it-7 /it-a #34
Maybe someone can cut the costs by providing a BMW Master Tech and/or Field Engineer, and all the parts and special tools for assembly.
I haven't done an M50TU B25 yet, but it seems that fresh-out-of-tech-school kids don't have any problems with changing head gaskets, cams, setting up the VANOS, etc. And after all IT engines aren't that far away from stock, right?
It would be great too if someone had a stock head casting so tech could check things like port volume and seat widths and angles.
Maybe something like this can be arranged for this years ARRC.
Matt Kessler
Kessler Engineering
The teardown bond has to be agreed upon by both parties, and the Stewards will often bring in an outside engine builder/tech to help determine a fair value (or even have it done by an agreed upon 3rd party), so nobody get's "gouged". And yes, if the protest is upheld the protestor gets some or all of his money back. In some cases it will be prorated based on what was found out of compliance wrt what was torn down. My experience has been that the bond doesn't usually cover the entire cost (or the PITA factor), so a legal competitor gets screwed a bit. Sorta like getting in an accident that isn't your fault- yeah your car gets fixed but it isn't exactly the same anymore and you get no reimbursement for the PITA.
Grega my comment about pooling your money was in jest, my attitude definitely isn't "you can't afford to protest us". In fact, I did a voluntary heads off teardown with another competitor a few years ago for everybody in class to see. And although I wasn't there at CMP I heard Wittel offered to let the would be protestor see a teardown the next time the engine was out for any reason. I'd pull the motor on a Z for a 1/2 a beer, but I can see where a BMW is a different kettle o' fish.
Now, whether or not an E36 belongs in ITS is another discussion, but soon as you get it moved to another class I got a 240Z WITHOUT RR shocks just waiting for a comeback...
------------------
katman
Been in a courtroom lately, Greg?Quote:
Originally posted by grega:
...Legality by financial blackmail? Man, I hope that attitude's not very prevalent in the ranks...
Gregg
K, thanks for the explanation. I am glad Chet Wittel offered to allow an inspection of the teardown, there has been a lot of talk about that car.
I'm so far behind it doesn't really matter anyway, and it was odd racing with NO BMWs (other than an E30) in the SARRC races.
The "unfair advantage" in that program is the driver. Chet's in a class by himself.Quote:
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
K, thanks for the explanation. I am glad Chet Wittel offered to allow an inspection of the teardown, there has been a lot of talk about that car.
------------------
katman
I bet there will be alot of these kind of rumors. BMW 325's were turning 1:42's with junkyard motors and non-vanos heads at road Atlanta 3 years ago. Grafton and his dad were running a '92 (non-vanos) and posted those times a few years back. And that was before the open computer rules. Dino Stiener was running a dual purpose world challenge and ITS BMW that was stinking fast. The laptimes are just going to keep dropping.
Tom
My quick thoughts, asked by a few of my customers:
-That is not 3 sec faster than another car. I think the RX-7s did 2:13.8 recently?
-Those engines are a huge pain, especially the teardown that was requested which would have been the full bottom end. I don't know what the bond was but the book hours would have put it easily in the thousandS.
-No one, not a BMW master tech even, would put back together my race motor. There is a cost to put it back together and whether it is in money paid or money lost by lost opportunity cost, there is cost involved.
-You get the money back if you are right. Right?
-How about a teardown at the ARRC? It is free to see and I doubt Chet will be getting slower for that weekend.
BMW opponents - lobby for a restrictor plate for the BMW. Maybe they are a little too fast right now, but a lot of weight to even them out makes stuff break and kills tires way too fast.
------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Clay
http://www.bimmerworld.com
Engineered BMW Performance
2003 ITS ARRC Champions
(540) 639-9648
-----------------------------------------------------------
James,
I agree with you about the weight. Adding weight doesn't seen to be a good idea to me either. Stock brakes, even with cooling, are way overloaded in racing. And tires cost money. And overloaded broken parts cause wasted weekends.
I'm not anti-BMW at all. I've been wanting to build one for about 3 years now but I've got too much tied up in my 240z. And even if I switched, I'd still like to see a field full of 944's, datsuns, bmw's tr8's, oldsmobiles, honda. I like the diversity.
Out of all the cars I've worked on, BMW at least appears to design cars with the idea that someone is gonna have to work on it at some point. I've yet to hit the point where I've said "who in the hell designed this".
And tearing down Chet's car will be a waste of time.
Tom
Bingo! Say, didn't SCCA National Tech get a painful lesson on Miata cams the last time they tore down a Sunbelt engine?Quote:
Originally posted by Tom Donnelly:
And tearing down Chet's car will be a waste of time.
Tom
I'm with James on all points. Good post.
------------------
katman
You might want to check the news from Lime Rock this weekend. They kick out a couple of Miatas for having the wrong cams, and last I saw they were running Sunbelt engines.Quote:
Originally posted by kthomas:
Bingo! Say, didn't SCCA National Tech get a painful lesson on Miata cams the last time they tore down a Sunbelt engine?
I'm with James on all points. Good post.
Guess that lesson didn't take. The Lime Rock cams were within Mazda factory tolerances and they still DQ'd the cars. Sounds like somebody had a bug up their arse. Wait for the appeals to flush out....
------------------
katman
[This message has been edited by kthomas (edited June 03, 2004).]
Adding weight to the E36:
Whats wrong with adding back the weight that the SCCA took off of it?
The E30 races at 2750, 95 lbs less than the stock weight of 2845. The E36 races at 2850, 237 lbs less than the stock weight of 3087. Where's the harm in adding 150 lbs back to the car?
Arestrictor plate? are you kidding? does anyone want the SCCA figuring out restrictor plate sizes?
Actually SCCA dictates and manages restrictor plates in other classes so it's not unheard of. It'd be long term cheaper than added weight for the reasons James Clay mentioned.
------------------
katman
I'm sorry, but I thought the appeal had already been heard, Sunday morning, that is the reason that they announced the disqualification the next day. SCCA Pro usually gives you the chance to justify yourself before they tell everybody about it.Quote:
Originally posted by kthomas:
Guess that lesson didn't take. The Lime Rock cams were within Mazda factory tolerances and they still DQ'd the cars. Sounds like somebody had a bug up their arse. Wait for the appeals to flush out....
According to SCCA.com/Pro, the appeal was heard Sunday morning.
One of the persons disqualified Saturday, won on Monday, I assume, not using the same cams from before the protest.
------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA
[This message has been edited by oanglade (edited June 04, 2004).]
The restrictor plate dimensions just have to be well defined or your gonna get really ingenious interpretations of a restrictor plate. Adding weight is just gonning to cost more money in repairs, tires, brakes and such. Just like the thread on the power steering pump, I'd like to see allowances for things that break too easy, but thats a real can of worms I guess.
Tom
Spec Miata issue is better explained here:
http://www.specmiata.com/ubb/ultimatebb.ph...opic/8/378.html
------------------
Bob Pinkowski
Atlanta Region SCCA/NASA Southeast
OPM Autosports
ITS Honda Prelude (for sale)
[This message has been edited by bobpink (edited June 04, 2004).]
I agree with you about the weight. Adding weight doesn't seen to be a good idea to me either. Stock brakes, even with cooling, are way overloaded in racing. And tires cost money. And overloaded broken parts cause wasted weekends.
BooHooHoo.
Really. Nobody was all that concerned about this when they slapped a 2690lb minimum weight on an Integra GSR. Thats 2700lbs on a car equipped with the exact same brakes that come on the Honda Civic EX and Del Sol that are classed at under 2400lbs. Oh, and thats 2700lbs on a FWD car, you know, a car with the front tires doing everydamnedthing... Yeah, right. As I said... BooFrigginHoo for the BMW boys.
So BMW guys need not start bitching about brake parts and tires due to added weight. All you'd be getting is what other guys already have.
Scott, who laughed when he read that stuff.
From what I've seen the E36s are strong in every department. Great torque, strong top end, good handling, good braking, and great traction out of a corner.
The Speed Touring guys have even more tricks up their sleeve, so some trickle down to ITS is occuring and will continue. In other words, I expect a few more tenths out of them at the minimum.
Short of a new class above ITS (ITR???) the solution rests in both weight and restriction.
I would prefer that they were moved up, and maybe got a weight break, but we need other cars in the class, like the RX-8, and the 350Z, etc. So we're too early for a new class.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
You are correct. What SCCA Pro Racing didn't mention was the fact that all the cams in question were within Mazda factory tolerances as previously mentioned, and one of the DQ'd cars was running the bone stock cams and sprockets from a Mazda crate motor. Hadn't even been "Sunbelted" in that area. I've seen this before (up close and personal), and eventually I'll see it again. When SCCA wants to screw you , no amount of documentation will save you. Some days it's just your turn. But we (I) digress...Quote:
Originally posted by metalworker:
I'm sorry, but I thought the appeal had already been heard, Sunday morning, that is the reason that they announced the disqualification the next day. SCCA Pro usually gives you the chance to justify yourself before they tell everybody about it.
------------------
katman