Weight added to BMW e36

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer:
I stated several pages ago in this thread that I would share my Dyno information with the Club Race Board. Once the board has had ample time to review, I will post them to this forum.

Alright, I guess I'll just have to wait for the CRB to forward your letter to the ITAC... Looking forward to seeing the information...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Geo]

Originally posted by chuck baader:
Assuredly something will come along that the fast/moneyed boys will switch to that will become the dominate car.

Yep. They boys who must write a big check to go racing will probably seek a new car. The E46 323i.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[wburstein]

I want to address a number of points made on various posts:

- The reason that there are more BMWs than other cars at the ARRC is due to its performance potential. Lots of folks have either switched over or did not show up due to the performance disparity. The comment about a BMW winning due to the number of cars makes no sense to me.

- A comment was made that the top ITS finishers were local racers. What about Ed York, an out of region racer, being on the pole. If his engine had not failed, he should have been in the running for the win in a BMW.

- As for comparing dyno results taken on different days on different dynos, the engineer in me says that any conclusions made on that data are suspect.

- Finally, the comment was made that perhaps the BMWs are especially competitive at Road Atlanta because it is a horsepower track. At Summit Point, which is more of a handling track, Ed York holds the track record with a 1:24.886. The best ITS time that I know of by a non-E36 car in the highly competitive MARRS series is a RX7 at 126.037 with the best 240Z time of 126.902. Considering that the EP track record is 1:22.719, it appears that the E36 is pushing into production prep level times!


------------------
Wayne Burstein
WDC Region, ITS #10
www.mountainmotorsports.net

[JeffYoung]

And Wayne, to back up the EP comparision, Wittel ran a 2:12 in qual, EP track record is 2:09.3.

Amazing that ANY IT car could be that close to an EP car.

[GKR_17]

Originally posted by wburstein:


We do need to adjust this disparity in ITS before the attrition damages the class any worse. In the WDC region, our ITS fields have dropped from an average of 25 cars to less than 15 since the BMW E36 was introduced. I attribute that to many folks not wanting to race when they do not feel they have a chance to win.

Seems to me that the drop in IT fields directly relates to the rise in Spec Miata, in the Southeast, I'd say it hurt ITB the most, not ITS.

Grafton

[GKR_17]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Yup. The fastest RX-7 and the fastest Z in the country.

Any addition in weight will just bring the car in line with everything else in the class. A BMW has run a 1:40.8 at RA this weekend. 1 full second is the current delta. Not huge, but a significant data point non-the-less.

AB

Actually, Jeff Hill turned a faster time in an Rx-7 that same weekend, with a lot more traffic to deal with.

Nick: 1:41.827
Jeff: 1:41.558

Grafton

[Bill Miller]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Geo: Also, despite the attempt of some to spin PCAs as comp adjustments, they are not.</font>

Actually George, they are referred to as such in the Dec. FasTrack. So, looks like you're wrong yet again!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[lateapex911]

C'mon Bill.....Who cares what the silly typo said?? Call 'em IT comp adjustments if you want, they're a whole different deal than Prod Comp Adjustments! Let's not start that "he said-she said- you're wrong again" thing and ruin a good debate, ok?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by GKR_17:
Actually, Jeff Hill turned a faster time in an Rx-7 that same weekend, with a lot more traffic to deal with.

Nick: 1:41.827
Jeff: 1:41.558

Grafton

Nick ran a 1:41.458 in the race. Commented that he would lose 5 car-lengths on the back straight to the BMW's.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[Banzai240]

For what it's worth, the ITAC was informed today that PCA adjustments were NOT going to be used for the purposes of speeding cars up or otherwise as a "competition adjustment"...

They are going to be utilized, exactly as we described and have told you all over and over again, to correct classification errors, which included reigning in overdogs that have shown more competition potential than was originally anticipated on initial classification.

The only allowed method of "competition adjustment" is still a reclassification, as is STILL stated in the ITCS, even with the change in wording. The only difference now is that there is a mechanism in place to make adjustments to the weights should they be deemed to have been selected in error, based on the criteria listed in the wording...

So, you can think that they are whatever you like, but the fact of the matter is that the CRB are the ones that are actually going to implement these PCAs, so their interpretation is all that really matters. The ITAC will make recommendations based on the CRB's interpretation.

Enjoy!


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 10, 2004).]

[Geo]

[edit] removed redundant post

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited November 10, 2004).]

[lateapex911]

That makes sense Darin....and it's right in line with my idea of the concept two years ago....no sense making an entire class spend $ to raise the game, much easier (and cheaper) to slow one car down.

So, do I have it correctly that you can recommend:
1- That a certain model have weight added or a restrictor added to bring its performance potential inline...
2- That a certain model may be moved down a class where it fits better
3- A certain model may be moved down a class, AND have weight added if needed?

And 4- a certain model can me moved UP a class, and have it's weight adjusted if needed?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Bill Miller]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Banzai240:The only allowed method of "competition adjustment" is still a reclassification, as is STILL stated in the ITCS, even with the change in wording.</font>

Where is it still stated Darin? The way I read the Dec. FasTrack, those words were removed.

Jake,

You don't think pushing all those cars down into ITA isn't going to make people spend more money? Darin has alredy stated that they're using the top cars in a class to define its performance envelope. How does adding more cars at the 'top' do anything but push existing non-'top' cars down the grid, or make them spend more moneey to move up (or stay where they are)?

And Darin, you've finally come out and said what I knew was going to happen all along. The cars that are deemed 'too fast' to get moved down a class will be essentially told to pound sand (since PCAs won't be used to speed cars up). I'm sure the gen. 1 RX7/AW11 MR2/Rabbit GTI/etc. folks will be happy to hear this! But hey, they're all ~20 years old, so who really cares? The people that want to win can just buy/build new cars!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Where is it still stated Darin? The way I read the Dec. FasTrack, those words were removed.

Have you actually put two and two together Bill to see what was ADDED in place of the word "reclassification"??? Here, let me refresh your memory:

Originally posted in the November Fastrack:

And bunch of mumbo-jumbo about initial vehicle classifications and their specs over the first 4-years....

...

Then...


On rare occasion and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle's minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle's class.

The CRB has stated that "restoring equity within the vehicle's class", means to reign in the overdogs in the class, NOT to speed up the underdogs to meet the overdogs. How that is a bad thing I just don't know. Apparently, you do... As I truely HAVE stated MANY times, these are NOT PROD STYLE COMP ADJUSTMENTS... they are NOT meant to SPEED CARS UP. If you all recall, one of the MAIN fears most people had in responding the PCAs was the idea of using them in a Production style, aka: speed up this car, slow down that one, allow something on these ones, etc...

The whole PCA concept is to prevent things like the CRX in ITA and the BMW in ITS, etc. from happening.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bill Miller:Darin has alredy stated that they're using the top cars in a class to define its performance envelope. </font>

Like to know when I said that... In ITS, for example, the "definition of the class" comes in the form of the 240Z... Hardly the "top car".

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

And Darin, you've finally come out and said what I knew was going to happen all along. The cars that are deemed 'too fast' to get moved down a class will be essentially told to pound sand (since PCAs won't be used to speed cars up). I'm sure the gen. 1 RX7/AW11 MR2/Rabbit GTI/etc. folks will be happy to hear this! But hey, they're all ~20 years old, so who really cares? The people that want to win can just buy/build new cars!

Awe.... such are the words of those that think THEIRS are the only solutions...

Paint whatever picture you like, Bill. There are several other solutions to the "problems" you mention. What you claim to know is solely based on your own bitterness towards this club, and doesn't scratch the surface of what gets discussed or what might actually be done. And, as has always been the situation with IT, there is NO GUARANTEE OF COMPETITIVENESS. We'll do our best to get the mechanical specs of the cars inline within a class, but we are not going to throw nit-picky adjustments to every example of a car in an attempt to levy complete and utter parity in a class. This would be the Production way, and PCAs were sold with the idea that this is NOT what was going to happen. Every class has an "envelope of performance", hopefully within which each car in the class "should" fit. Some will be toward the upper end, and some toward the lower. Sorry Bill, but that's just the way racing works. Unless you want WC style weight adjustments, that's how IT is going to work.

WE needed a mechnism to correct gross errors that throw off the balance of a class, and now we have that mechanism. It's a good thing and it won't destroy the purpose and intent of IT, which was an overriding theme of many of the letters we received as feedback prior to PCAs being implemented.

Enjoy spreading the doom and gloom, however. When the sky stops falling, perhaps you can go out and enjoy some racing...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 11, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 11, 2004).]

[Greg Amy]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The CRB has stated that "restoring equity within the vehicle's class", means to reign in the overdogs in the class, NOT to speed up the underdogs to meet the overdogs.</font>

Darin, knowing that we consistnetly face rules interpretations that may fly in the face of the original intent, and knowing that ideals and attitudes change with administrations, I think it would be a FINE idea to specifically put this intent in the rules NOW. Otherwise, 10 years from now we may see a devolution into true comp adjustments, with the basis of "well, we don't KNOW their intent, so we just have to go by the stated rule and adjust for parity (or allow spherical bearings, or allow intake porting, or allow MoTec ECUs, yada, yada, yada...)

GA

[JeffG]

Darin - Thanks for all the clarifications. Is 2005 done, or can more adjustments be implemented?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by JeffG:
Darin - Thanks for all the clarifications. Is 2005 done, or can more adjustments be implemented?

I've been told that "rules season" is over for the year, and in reality, since the GCR is already on it's way to the printers, I don't know if you'll see anything big happen for next season..

That being said, there may be some things that get done by the end of the year, because the CRB/BoD still have one more "voting" session... either later this month or in December to take care of some final details...

I'll try to find out more when we have our next con-call...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Bill Miller]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle's minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required.</font>

Gee Darin, sure looks like more than one option to me. :roll:

Like to know when I said that... In ITS, for example, the "definition of the class" comes in the form of the 240Z... Hardly the "top car".

Guess I'll have to dredge up the "NB in ITC" thread, as well as a thread or two about the ITS cars that were getting moved to ITA. And the ITS comment is weak Darin. The 240Z is certainly one of the 'best of the rest' after the E36. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to use a car that's viewed as an obvious overdog, as the benchmark.

Awe.... such are the words of those that think THEIRS are the only solutions...

Yeah, that's it Darin.

So Darin, let's discuss those 'several other solutions'. I'd be curious as to what, besides reclassifiction or a reduction in weight, you see as options for those three cars. One assumption that we're operatining under, for purposes of this discussion, is that the cars in question are deemed 'too fast' to be moved down a class. That's been stated in black and white (one's and zero's??) for the GTI, and I believe for the RX7 and MR2 as well. So, that would seem to leave a reduction in spec. weight. You've stated (ad nauseum) that PCA's won't be used to speed cars up, so I guess that leaves out a weight reduction.

Help me understand Darin, what else is there?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Help me understand Darin, what else is there?

You can slow down the "overdogs"...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[mlytle]

so how do we define overdogs? of the dozens of cars classified in its, there are basically only three cars that win races. rx7, z's and e36's. all the rest sort of "fill the field". if the intent of pca's is serious (and not just the e36 witch hunt it appears to be), then ALL of these "overdogs" would be being considered for more weight. yes? no?