Can someone tell me the various weights of ITS and ITA bmws, i have misplaced my gcr, and i was just curious about various 325s in ita and its, and 318s in ita and its, Thank you.
Printable View
Can someone tell me the various weights of ITS and ITA bmws, i have misplaced my gcr, and i was just curious about various 325s in ita and its, and 318s in ita and its, Thank you.
ITS- E36 2850
don't know the rest.
Robbie
10 ITS E36
ITS - E30 2750
ITS 318i/is Twin Cam - 2600#
ITA 318 (e36) - 2840# (oink)
ITA 325e (e30) - 2750
Have fun!
Kirk
youve got to be kidding, the 318 e36 weighs less than only 10lb less than a 325. thats a joke. and the 2850 on the e36 325is is a joke too, i own one, and that car is much more like 3050. i wonder how that got classed.
who knows. who cares. we are beating the hell out of everything so it's not a bad thing. They give the rotary bombs less weight and better brakes.Quote:
Originally posted by golfracer:
and the 2850 on the e36 325is is a joke too, i own one, and that car is much more like 3050. i wonder how that got classed.
Robbie
Yes it is. To be "beating the hell out of everything" because a car has been miss classed or under weight is not a good thing.Quote:
Originally posted by mazing3:
who knows. who cares. we are beating the hell out of everything so it's not a bad thing.
don't get the wrong impression here. We are not winning races because we have been mis classed. Yes the E36 has been successful but MOST of the E36s out there are NOT winning races consitantly. The ones that are prepped to the max and have had the exteme effort put forth to dial them in and then driven well are indeed winning. But that goes for the Rotarys, Zs,944s and Integras as well.Quote:
Originally posted by zracer22:
Yes it is. To be "beating the hell out of everything" because a car has been miss classed or under weight is not a good thing.
This car is not misclassed.
Robbie
10 ITS E36
Just to be clear that I didn't make this a conversation about classification...
By pretty much every criteria that can be applied to the cars themselves - taking drivers and prep levels out of the equation - the e36 is mechnanically a superior car.
I would buy the argument about brakes if the e36 were brake-limited - is it the case that it is necessary to baby them to make it through a regional? It might well be and I have just never heard of it.
Regarding weight (and this has to be considered at least to some degree against power), the Mazdas should weigh less than the BMWs - even MORE less than they do currently, if a true power-to-weight formula were being considered. See http://www.evaluand.com/it2/weightform.htm to see the numbers.
I don't blame the folks running the 325is for thinking that life is good. I don't have a dog in the ITS fight so I think I can be pretty objective - the e36 has got a significant leg up on the competition, right from the point that it rolls into the shop to have the interior removed.
Kirk
The E36 had a significant leg up on the competition when it rolled off the assembly line. It was the best engineered and built car in its class at the time. (Check out the October issue of Car & Driver to see how its replacement, the E46 compares to the competition if you don't want to take my word for it.)
Given that, the E36 is most assuredly not miss classed, it is simply the best car out there. Period.
I have been thinking about this and the real answer depends on which definition of "mis-classed" is applied.Quote:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...the E36 is most assuredly not miss classed, it is simply the best car out there.</font>
** Should it be moved up a class? Obviously it can't. Mis-classed by this definition? NO.
** Should it carry more weight? The current IT philosophy (theoretically) bases race weights on stock weights. Using the (again, theoretical) formula, it should weigh 3140#. Applying the same math to the RX7 would leave it within 8# of its actual IT weight and the same goes for the Jetta VR6. However, the Corrado, Oldsmobiles, Preludes and even the 2-litre Golf and Hondas are also substantially lighter than the formula says they should be. The Integra GS-R is notably HEAVIER than would result if the formula were being applied. Is the e36 mis-classed by this criteria? Probably NO but some others certainly are.
** Should all cars in a given class be evenly matched? Again, the SCCA position is that we shouldn't assume that this will be the case. Mis-classed? Again, NO, under the current system.
I would suggest that if you are one of the folks out there who DO think the BMW is being endowed with overdog status in ITS, your real complaint is not with the e36 or the people who enter them. It is with the current classification and specification process. As long as you make it a grudge match against one make, you sound exactly like the e36 owners who defend the current state of things - like you are defending your turf and lobbying your self interests.
Kirk
The unsaid question is whether this car should have been classified in Improved Touring at all.Quote:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">** Should it be moved up a class? Obviously it can't. Mis-classed by this definition? NO.</font>
SCCA has made it clear that some cars will never be classified in IT due to their significant performance potential, some early-90s ex-Showroom Stock A and GT cars for example. If one were to accept (and it's a specious assumption) that some cars are TOO good for Improved Touring, then the BMWs should have been viewed with this in mind.
Given that the BMWs *are* classified and will never be de-classified, then it seems the SCCA has opened the flood gates to ITS. Hopefully this flood will cause a close look at the remaining classes, possibly forcing a complete restructuring of Improved Touring.
Since the SCCA refuses to re-classify 10-year-old 2-liter cars out of ITS (and subsequently re-organize the classes below ITS), and it's apparent that any cars capable of performance potential better than the existing ITA/B/C cars will be placed in ITS, we will continue to see increasing movements towards fracturing of the classes, a la Spec Miata, IT-7, IT-2, ad nausea as members work to move away from a quickly-growing and largely-expensive ITS class.
These next few years should be interesting times as the mid-90's performance cars become IT-eligible...
GregA
I disagree with this logic completely. In the grand scheme of things, not every car will be perfectly competitive and not everyone will be happy. This new proposed classification scheme is not going to solve a thing.Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
** Should it carry more weight? The current IT philosophy (theoretically) bases race weights on stock weights. Using the (again, theoretical) formula, it should weigh 3140#. Applying the same math to the RX7 would leave it within 8# of its actual IT weight and the same goes for the Jetta VR6. However, the Corrado, Oldsmobiles, Preludes and even the 2-litre Golf and Hondas are also substantially lighter than the formula says they should be. The Integra GS-R is notably HEAVIER than would result if the formula were being applied. Is the e36 mis-classed by this criteria? Probably NO but some others certainly are.
3140 for the ITS E36 is ridiculous. Not every E36 is cleaning up. Mazdas have won their sprint series in 3+ divisions (including the SE) this year - and the geniuses behind the new class system want to give them another 200 pound advantage against the E36? Our cars are extremely well prepared and we have a book of setup data to get them up to speed on each track fast. Even so, we are only a few tenths ahead of the best prepared Mazdas and 240s, ON A GOOD WEEKEND - we aren't always in front.
190 pounds is going to add a few tenths to lap times? I am tired of the E36 being cannon fodder for the disgruntled masses - penalizing it 190 pounds will get everyone on the updated spec sheet bandwagon, despite how messed up the rest of the system is? Rather than taking the added weight of the BMW as good data to argue for this "advance in SCCA class technology" and dismissing all the other skewed cars (the Corrado, Oldsmobiles, Preludes and even the 2-litre Golf and Hondas), maybe these cars should indicate how out of whack this formula/scheme is?
The fact is that the weights for the cars at the front where we are (E36, RX-7, 240, Honda) are very good. There are definitely some that are out, but a lot have never had a shop behind them pushing the development process along. Remember the E36 draws directly from over five years for World Challenge, GA, DTM, etc technology. Robbie won two of three races at RA recently after one of our crew guys and I spent an entire lapping day tweaking the setup and pulling a couple of tricks out of the bag, including tire choice. At the recent SIC championship, Kip rented the track out A DAY BEFORE THE LAPPING DAY, spent the day testing between his BMW and RX-7, then tweaking the faster (RX-7) car for the weekend. Kip and Jeff also used the same tires we had at RA and both qualified slightly ahead of Robbie, Robbie finished 2nd between them in a very tight race. That was a battle of preparation - not spec sheets.
If one of our E36 cars are lucky enough to win the 240/RX-7 dominated ARRCs (Maybe they should have more weight?), it will be preparation, a part or two we have developed for the WC E36 cars recently, and the bag of tricks we have built up to dig into. I expect a close race with no one walking away with the whole thing. A 240 has won the last 2 years, RX-7s have won, maybe we can get one big win in before we have to carry the 190# lead trophy that apparently only the E36 BMW deserves...
------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Clay
http://www.bimmerworld.com
Engineered BMW Performance
World Challenge/SCCA/BMWCCA Racecar Rental
Genuine OEM and Used BMW Parts
(540) 639-9648
-----------------------------------------------------------
James, your whole argument has a flaw. %99 of IT racers don't have 5 years of World Challenge data, the resources to rent a track for a testing day, or a race shop backing them up all season long. It is just that type of philosophy that is ruining IT for the average racer. I agree, that any car can win if fully prepped, tested and tons of $$$ dumped into it. But that just isn't the case with 98% of us the race IT cars. The phrase "inexpesive cars" in the purpose and intent of IT is what made IT so popular. Does anyone really think that a 35K Speedsource RX7 or one of Bimmerworld's 35-40K E36 fits into the Purpose and Intent of IT? (Just making a point, not picking on James or Speedsource.)
Rule and spec changegs should not depend on how they affect 1-2% of the entrants, it should depend on how it affects the 80-90% of the entrants that are the heart and soul of IT. Personally, I'm sick of hearing about the ARRC. The ARRC doesn't apply to 95% of us. It has nothing to do with IT. Sure it is great racing and some of the classes are real competitive, but it certainly doesn't resemble any other regional races throught the country. And let's not forget, that that is exactly what it is, a regional race. I know, I sound bitter, but don't get me wrong. It's great that there is a race like the ARRC for you guys that are that fast and competitive. And to all of you that participate this year, good luck, have fun and be safe.
Let me try to sum up my thought in one or two sentences:
The SCCA shouldn't consider the 1-2% of racers who choose to push the limits of or go beyond the stated Purpose and Intent of IT racing, when deciding car classifications and rule changes.
I like to think I have a clue but I wouldn't go so far as "genius"... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/redface.gifQuote:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...the geniuses behind the new class system want to give [the Mazdas] another 200 pound advantage against the E36?</font>
Seriously - before getting all defensive, James, read back through my posts. My point is NOT that the e36 needs a "lead trophy" (a practice that I think is asinine). I am simply saying that the system could do with some tweaking, based on the physical attributes of the cars and I am absolutely NOT basing my argument on the finishing record of any particular make or model.
I fully believe that the hardest working (and frankly, the best funded) drivers/teams should be up front - not that everyone on the track deserves a trophy. Accepting that, I challenge everyone in this conversation to make their point considering the physical qualities of the cars in question.
For example, it has been suggested that the RX7s have an advantage with their bigger brakes. Since the experts are in this forum, I will ask again: Do the e36s have to nurse their brakes to make it though a regional? Or how much power and torque does a pro-built 325is engine make? Surely, with the attention to detail that gets applied by well-organized teams running these cars, someone here knows. I applied a multiplier of 1.2x mfr quoted HP to both the 13b rotary and variable valve piston engines. Am I off base?
Making information like this public does not give others the expertise, time, and resources to duplicate the leading BMW teams' successes but it would go a LONG way toward promoting a fact-based conversation.
I will also tell you that the index used to establish the weights with the IT2 calculator was established based on a broad cross-section of currently classified cars, intended to limit the variance from lightest to heaviest. The math would be more accurate if, for example, the 2-litre cars were taken out of the picture - their low power figures unduly influence the results. If 3140# is indeed out of line for the e36 325 in ITS trim, help me understand what its "real" IT weight would be - considering full preparation, a stout cage, and legal modifications. Don't worry about what the RX7 or any other cars currently weigh because they would likely be different, too.
Another issue is whether the power/weight curve should be linear - physics suggests that it shoudn't be, since additional mass "costs" in terms of accelerations other than those realized when the throttle is applied. Not considering this (under my current formula) imposes an additional penalty on the most powerful cars in any class. I have played around with other formulas as well, considering factors like aero horsepower (Cd and frontal area), and even valve area, but the power-to-weight option is easy and gets things in the ballpark for theoretical conversations...
I am arguing for a level playing field across the board, not a hatchet job on the bimmer. With complete respect for the hard work that your organization does, James, it is all too easy to hear what you are saying as protecting an advantage that some feel is unfair under the current rules. I guess I am assuming that a most folks - particularly those who take pride in working their butts off to find a competitive advantage - would be willing to compete on my mythical level field but I might be wrong...
Kirk
That isn't a flaw in my arguement - I never even commented on the general amounts of money being spent. I am arguing that picking on the E36 and adjusting the weights as outlined in the new system makes no sense what-so-ever. Racers are spending big amounts across all of the marques - my question is why is the focus suddenly directed at the E36.
But to address your points (I am not being arguementative here - I think this is a good discussion):
-World Challenge DATA is mostly worthless in IT - different rules, tires, etc - this is the secret stuff that no one shares. WC DEVELOPMENT is worth something. Call me about a header for your E36 ITS car and I will sell you the one we just updated for our WC cars and it will be worth 10Hp over every other system out. My statement only refered to parts availability.
-Number of times I have rented out the track for a day - 0. We are organized and come into test day with specific goals in mind and work all day with the car to get it where it needs to be - big changes if required, not just driving around to get used to the track. It doesn't always take money, just getting out and working hard (it is work on test day). I didn't get my setup right for the RA WC race last weekend and the car wasn't much better than mid-pack. I am not going to complain about the guys that did get it right.
-INTENT - the most overused word in any arguement and most misused word in any rulebook. If there is an intent to the rules, flesh them out to mirror that intent and have someone used to pushing them go through a revision and point out flaws. Racers push the rules to the absolute limit - the ones that are spelled out line by line. I don't go back and re-read the class objectives after I have figured out something that is legally allowed to make sure it follows intent. I think it is fair to assume that the intent is mirrored in the wording of the rules by someone more in charge of interpreting the rules than I am. Besides, how can you limit the rules to stop people from spending money? SS cars can spend as much as we do on the national level, as can Spec Miata in 1-2 cases. This is a fact of racing.
-The ARRC - unfortunately (?), it applies to most of us. It is regional, but the biggest regional in the country with the widest draw, showcasing a large number of the best cars and drivers in the country. The results here are a fair indicator of how things are matched in the spec pages because every car at the front will be well built, well set-up, and well driven. If you are talking about specific car spec problems (which we initially were), this is a good one to pay attention to.
CA racers are starting to go to spec classes as a backlash against IT rules creep. I have been working on a Spec E30 class for BMW racers which should begin next year. Not fast enough - we just speced out a few E36 cars that can be built for $12k including car and cage but no labor - build a spec class around these.
You won't get any arguement from met that IT is far from where it started, but I think that SCCA didn't do an effective job of limiting the rules initially and now, for better or worse, this is the culture ingrained in the class. What would I do differently? I don't know because I like the parts allowed and it is impossible to limit preparation money unless there was a claimer rule (try implementing that one at this point).
My counterpoint in two sentences:
Car classifications and rules changes, when made, should be made across the board, not directly targeted toward a particular person or group that is legally working within the current rule structure and status quo of the class. Remember, we didn't even race IT until SS was selling $35k cars - I just wanted to see a BMW win.
------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Clay
http://www.bimmerworld.com
Engineered BMW Performance
World Challenge/SCCA/BMWCCA Racecar Rental
Genuine OEM and Used BMW Parts
(540) 639-9648
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally posted by zracer22:
It is just that type of philosophy that is ruining IT for the average racer. I agree, that any car can win if fully prepped, tested and tons of $$$ dumped into it. But that just isn't the case with 98% of us the race IT cars. The phrase "inexpesive cars" in the purpose and intent of IT is what made IT so popular. Does anyone really think that a 35K Speedsource RX7 or one of Bimmerworld's 35-40K E36 fits into the Purpose and Intent of IT? (Just making a point, not picking on James or Speedsource.)
Ahhh...here we go again. The guys putting forth the most amount of effort and using all the resources available are the bad guys ruining IT. Love your sport and find the funds to do it as best you can do it and you are the villian. When we came on the scene with E36 we walked into an ITS world created by Mazdas and 240s here in the SE. Speedsource, ISC, and whatever the hell black ops facility that was cranking out the 240s were running the show-well. This is why we came. It looked like a very high level of racing with committed drivers pushing further and further to be the fastest they could be and get the most out of the cars. We had all been racers in other series for some time and looked at the prep and ability of the "S" cars as where we'd want to try to be and getting to the front in that would be a challenge, a goal and a milestone. Over the years development of these cars has risen to a pretty high level and when well driven they are very successful. We are the least aero dynamic, the heaviest and have the worst brakes of any of them. We can however make some power. Anyone who knows anything about racing knows power just isn't enough.
Yeah it costs a few bucks to run one of these cars. Yeah running at the front in ITS has gotten pricey. Who can you possibly fault? All the drivers and shops that came first constantly pushing the envelope to go faster and constantly find ways to do so? Not a good argument there. Racing isn't cheap by any stretch and winning is a lot more costly. However there is beauty in IT. It is called "S" "A" "B" "C" and "7" Choose to race where you can afford to do what makes you happiest. If you want to run a 5k race car then do it in a class where there are a lot of them doing so. If you started out in S and couldn't keep up with the curve set by the people coming in with series growth then how can you blame them? Speedsource and Bimmerworld haven't done a whole lot outside of the "S" ranks so you can't blame them for you needing an expensive car to win in IT as a collective. All this is should be a common sense issue to any reasonably intelligent person.
I guess basically if winning is what you want to do but you can't do the things it takes to get there then maybe you should change the course you are on and plot it in a way that makes you happy instead of crying about the folks that already figured it out.
Robbie
The 10 Car-- yeah, of course it's an E36
So yes, we are in philosophical agreement. In that spirit, any possibility that you have answers to the questions that I posed above?Quote:
Originally posted by James Clay:
... Car classifications and rules changes, when made, should be made across the board...
K
I hope I speak for most Mazda guys on this topic. If not, shoot your $.02 on the pot...
I don't care how much a Speedsource or Bimmerworld car goes for. They are restoration quality rigs with all the right pieces where most of us skimp to save a buck. Frankly, I applaud these companies for raising the bar and for having a product that can keep the doors open in this IT environment.
The issue for me is one with the SCCA. When you class a car in ITS, and it is going to be one of the contenders, then you have to have a mechanism in place to bring the car into the intended performamce envelope if you underestimated its ability. Right now, we don't have that mechanism. It may be coming.
In SOLO 2, when I was on the Stock Class Advisory Committee, it was generally accepted that BMW's were typically better than the sum of their parts. Same for the Honda's of the 80's and early 90's and again with the Type R.
The BOTTOM line? When and if the E36 325's start dominating ITS in competitive pockets across the country, someone needs to take a long hard look at why. I think it is possible that this will happen and then ITS will be in big trouble.
To those who think the AARC isn't a factor, I say it is. It is the unofficial top event in IT for the Nation. If you want to see top cars with top car prep and top drivers, the only place you can look RIGHT NOW is the AARC. If the top 5 spots are E36's, then some eyebrows will be raised.
Let's just make sure that on the top of the ITS heap something doesn't get so fast that it renders a great class not so great.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
I have stayed out of that topic - I didn't know you were the one behind it. That wasn't intended to be a direct shot at you.Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
I like to think I have a clue but I wouldn't go so far as "genius"... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/redface.gif
I am trying not to be defensive, perhaps just a differing opinion? I assume this isn't directed at me or the E36 platform we support heavily. My last SCCA CR finish in an E36 was mid-pack - I can't even be considered a consistent frontrunner!Quote:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> Seriously - before getting all defensive, James, read back through my posts. </font>
I agree that the system could use some tweaking, POSSIBLY, but then I am even torn there. Certainly the Triumph should have less weight, but what happens when someone spends $100k on it to make it fast and it then blows everyone away (remember we can't write a rule to stop this from happening)? Perhaps you SHOULD base your new formula on the finishing position of similarly prepared cars - that would tell you that +8 for an RX-7 and +190 for the E36 is way off base, and not just because we are getting the worse end of the deal. I am not arguing for more weight on the RX-7 either - they have won more races than E36 cars in the past, but we are very tightly competitive now. Kip was faster in his RX-7 than the BMW at Roebling - no better example of similar preparation and driver skill. And your formula says the E36 needs more weight but the RX-7 is OK?Quote:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> My point is NOT that the e36 needs a \"lead trophy\" (a practice that I think is asinine). I am simply saying that the system could do with some tweaking, based on the physical attributes of the cars and I am absolutely NOT basing my argument on the finishing record of any particular make or model.</font>
I think that this is currently the case. What is your system going to improve? If it, as you stated, makes the BMW, Honda, Acura, Olds, etc cars heavier while leaving the RX-7 and currently non-dominant VR6 the same, you are just giving the hardest working (and frankly, the best funded) drivers/teams in an RX-7 a trophy.Quote:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> I fully believe that the hardest working (and frankly, the best funded) drivers/teams should be up front - not that everyone on the track deserves a trophy. </font>
"You can take a good look at a butcher's ass by sticking your head up there but wouldn't you rather take his word for it? No wait, I mean you can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a butcher's ass. No wait, it has to be your bull." - Tommy BoyQuote:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> For example, it has been suggested that the RX7s have an advantage with their bigger brakes. Since the experts are in this forum, I will ask again: Do the e36s have to nurse their brakes to make it though a regional? Or how much power and torque does a pro-built 325is engine make? Surely, with the attention to detail that gets applied by well-organized teams running these cars, someone here knows. I applied a multiplier of 1.2x mfr quoted HP to both the 13b rotary and variable valve piston engines. Am I off base?</font>
Seriously - who cares? I will donate a lap of video at last year's ARRC of me behind Dave Haskell which will illustrate the differences (not deficiencies) between the two cars. That is the real world test and why final adjustments on racecars are done by drivers instead of computers - numbers are not the bottom line. Quantitative data is BS in this situation because there are way more factors than you are considering. A mathmatical formula will not account for all of them.
From my view, I love our torque but the brakes and flipable handling of the RX-7 or weight and power of the 240 or ability of the Hondas/Acuras to pull through turns are equally nice.
Facts from experience: the RX-7s have better brakes. They are lighter and can generally stop better at the end of a long straight than the BMW. We don't have brake fade, but we do have tire fade. When you get a truthful number from Speedsource or ISC on an RX-7's power output or even an answer on who builds the 240 motors (since Stepp bought Orange, I think I may have a guess now), I will tell you ours. We have more torque than an RX-7 and more Hp (much more numerically), allowing us better pull out of turns. However, we pull a lot more weight and can't pull away from other fast cars on a tight draft.
Sorry, won't happen, and not just from us. If I told you how much power we were making honestly, everyone would scream bloody murder. I would be shocked and amazed if anyone else that has put in a lot of effort, shop or not, will give you numbers either - gives others a benchmark to work toward. Besides, it isn't just numbers, it is the whole dyno sheet that matters - another problem with a formula-based system.Quote:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> Making information like this public does not give others the expertise, time, and resources to duplicate the leading BMW teams' successes but it would go a LONG way toward promoting a fact-based conversation.</font>
[quote] [b]Nowhere in the SCCA rules or intent of rules (yes, I am going as far as to interpret intent this time) does anyone say or intend to say that spec weights are based on production weights. Weight is used to equalize the cars and, as stated before, in most cars has been done effectively. Spec weight is not stripped weight plus a cage and a driver of less average weight than I will ever be. Spec weight is a reasonable weight that anyone can build a car to that will handicap the car against the performance attributes of competing cars. If it really makes any difference to have the data, you can build an E36 as light as 2550 or less in IT trim with a substantial cage, driver not included.Quote:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> If 3140# is indeed out of line for the e36 325 in ITS trim, help me understand what its \"real\" IT weight would be - considering full preparation, a stout cage, and legal modifications. Don't worry about what the RX7 or any other cars currently weigh because they would likely be different, too.</font>
You are perhaps losing sight of your overall goal. There are two issues here. The first is competition between marques of car. There is good competition between well prepared examples as the rules stand now. I can't say or stress this enough - your proposal adds 190 pounds to the BMW while changing the RX-7 weight by 8 pounds, even though they are a draw as far as being competitive at this point! I am not arguing to maintain a competitive advantage - the reason I am so vocal here is because under your plan we would be the least competitive by taking the hardest hit in weight adjustments from what I consider to be a good system. Remember I didn't say the current system is perfect and I didn't say that finer points couldn't be argued - I said no system is absolutely perfect and will make everyone happy and the one we have is really close.Quote:
I am arguing for a level playing field across the board, not a hatchet job on the bimmer. With complete respect for the hard work that your organization does, James, it is all too easy to hear what you are saying as protecting an advantage that some feel is unfair under the current rules. I guess I am assuming that a most folks - particularly those who take pride in working their butts off to find a competitive advantage - would be willing to compete on my mythical level field but I might be wrong...
Kirk
The other issue is money/time/development - basically everything but the specs of the car. You yourself stated that this is a fact of racing. My only competitive advantage is experience with BMWs and knowledge of racing and setup. YOU said that this is why people should win races. It isn't even about money - if I had the same experience and love for 240s, I would apply the same effort and about half of the money and race in them competitively and own Nismoworld!
James Clay, SEDiv
#28 E36 ITS, for sale after 2002 ARRC
First of all, allow me to offer an apology to anyone that I offended earlier. I have no issue with anyone spending as many $$$ as they want to in their IT racing. I am all for capitalism and free enterprise. It's my choice to stay within a set budget. I am very disgusted with the way things are going in IT, but I hold the SCCA to blame. SCCA is very much like our gov't. When the gov't passes a law that turns out to be a bad law, instead of admitting to the error, they just throw more laws and regulations at it. IT was fine just they way it was when the SCCA first introduced it. Then came all the changes. Coil-overs, camber plates, ....., ecu mods, ... I hear that next year they will allow the installation of a Flux Capacitor http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif .
SCCA argues that you can please everyone, but they had better do something to please a majority of us soon. SCCA isn't the only game in town anymore. NASA isn't going away, it is growing. NASA is a cure all either, but it is another option. For example: how many Porsche 944s do you see in ITS fields lately? Answer: Go to a NASA race and watch the 944-Cup race. What will happen if NASA decides to have a 2ndGenRX7-Cup and a 240,260,280Z-Cup? Not to mention the fact that you can race for free with NASA if you are an instructor.
Again, I'm sorry if I offended any of you, my gripe is with the SCCA.
James,
I'd be interested in hearing more about your Spec E30 class. I was discussing the very same thing with some other E30 racers recently. I heard that Ground Control might actually be interested in getting involved with it.
Spec E30 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpecE30/
There is an initial rules set there, perhaps it could use a little tweaking still. You can also join the mailing list on that site.
I hope you weren't refering to me above - I am not offended by any discussions on the lists (usually). I agree, it was a fault in the system, not the participants in the system that everyone is complaining about now. Natural selection will usually weed out the top guys - a lot of our customers have figured out it isn't much more expensive to run pro and turn that way quickly.
------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Clay
http://www.bimmerworld.com
Engineered BMW Performance
World Challenge/SCCA/BMWCCA Racecar Rental
Genuine OEM and Used BMW Parts
(540) 639-9648
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I did not mean to cause all of this DISCUSSION, my point was just that I know my E36 weights much more than 2850. I like the fact that there are now some german cars fast in ITS, but i just hope that they did not classify a car that was too fast. I guess only time will tell.
Andy makes a good point. The club has created a big problem, which is really the result of their success. That success is the creation and gestation of the IT category, which is arguably one of the most popular categories in SCCA, and could be the key to the successful future of the club. The problem is the stated "no guarantee of competitivness" clause, which is really quite annoying at this point.Quote:
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
When you class a car in ITS, and it is going to be one of the contenders, then you have to have a mechanism in place to bring the car into the intended performamce envelope if you underestimated its ability. Right now, we don't have that mechanism. When and if the (my edit): Borgward Special starts dominating ITS in competitive pockets across the country, someone needs to take a long hard look at why.
If the top 5 spots (at the ARRC) are Borward Specials, then some eyebrows will be raised.
AB
I changed the references in Andy's post because while the discussion is currently about the E-36, it could be about any model car.
Car classifications and rules changes, when made, should be made across the board, not directly targeted toward a particular person or group that is legally working within the current rule structure and status quo of the class.
James, you said a mouthful there! A prime example of a rule change that WAS made across the board, but only benefits SOME cars in all IT classes is the ECU rule, which was applied to cars previously classified! Suddenly, the Shazamm 500 has another 15 HP! But other whole groups of cars IN THE SAME CLASS don't benefit, and are marginalized!
So, they made an error. Fine. Problem is, there is NO mechanism to fix it! James, I've met Kip and he is no doubt a sharp guy, and from what I see, he is a very talented driver. And no doubt, you guys have done your homework. I remember in an earlier post, you stated that at your levels of prep you felt it was better to not run too many IT events. I disagree....the rules encourage homework...you did it, you should benefit.
But IF there has been a mistake, and whatever car the SCCA classes winds up dominating fields (once the participation numbers are apples to apples, or at least closer, and the results aren't just based on one event), what can be done?
That is the real world test and why final adjustments on racecars are done by drivers instead of computers - numbers are not the bottom line. Quantitative data is BS in this situation because there are way more factors than you are considering. A mathmatical formula will not account for all of them.
Right, but a well thought out formula can get it close. But, even in the most perfect world, it would be very tough for any formula to predict the performance of so many models on so many tracks. In our case, it's unlikely that the powers that be will ever create (or even adopt http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif )such a thing. Hopefully I'm wrong and they will get close. But even if they do, I can't see a world where "tweaking" isn't required.
As it stands now, and this is not limited to ITS, we might have to look at the original statements of competiveness and philosophy...our foundation...if we expect to right a listing house. The house is really not that bad...but the foundation has settled!
CA racers are starting to go to spec classes as a backlash against IT rules creep. I have been working on a Spec E30 class for BMW racers which should begin next year.
I respectfully disagree with you here James....partially.... you have a point that the prep level may be too much for some. But I think most of the guys that are looking at spec series' due to the fact that they have lost faith in the parity of the classes. Certain classes have seen dramatic lap record changes in the past few years due to the inclusion of "overdogs". Rather than selling the perfectly good, once competitive ride, and getting into this years darling, then hoping for the best, they'd rather just go with equal equipment and let the driving decide the issue.
That single fact is the best indicator that the masses want a reasonable shot at being competitive, and some attempt by the SCCA at creating equality is needed.
The bottom line? The board doesn't have IT very high on their "to do" list, and will always refer back to the original paragraph, written decades ago, responding to our letters with a "Not consistant with class philosophy" comment, if we are lucky enough to even get a response!
------------------
Jake Gulick
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 14, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 14, 2002).]
Not a dang thing wrong with discussion. I just wanted to post my thanks for all of the input from those involved.Quote:
Originally posted by golfracer:
Sorry, I did not mean to cause all of this DISCUSSION...
Again, I am primarily interested in the classification question from an academic standpoint - it's what I do right now, rather than race - but I am afraid that we are going to have to address this question in a systematic way in the near future.
The classes are based on some assumptions that just don't hold and the changing nature of street cars is going to make current assumptions about IT obsolete within 5 years.
K