January FasTrack is up!

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

I was simply saying that it shouldn't be that hard to develop a model that should predict the weight w/in that 100# window. You are right however, we'll never know what the true weight should be.

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

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Knestis:

We sure spend a lot of time here picking ammunition for our arguments by reading selectively out of other's posts.

K

you are SO right!!!!
m

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
For an ENTIRE class...not the difference between the top 2...

AB

i must be missing your point. 1% between two cars is well within even a 3% range for an entire class. although it looked like he was comparing two cars in his post.

whatever. i was just making an observation.

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
why shouldn't we try and get things that close?

Because, while focusing on the end result weight being within 100# (or 1/3 to 1/2% of the cars' weight) we are ignoring the fact that we are estimating HP--and those estimations will vary by a similar amount. I just don't see much need to calculate this stuff down to the 3rd or 4th approximation when the HP (1st approximation) may vary by more than our target end result.

Even when we know the HP, apparently we are only using the peak number for weight calculation purposes, and are those examples torn down to ensure that they are not only legal but are also built to 10/10ths? Perhaps a car that has a closer ratio trans than another gets an 'adder' but what about the car with a big, wide powerband and a wide ratio box vs. a very peaky high reving motor with similar wide ratio box, any adjustment there?

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And I just don't subscribe to the 'couple of cars \"to have\"' philosophy. People shouldn't have to choose between a car they want to race, and a car they can be competitive with.</font>

I hear what you are saying, we just have a very different philosophy. I am satisifed to have a choice of more than one "car to have". I am also okay with having to have a new choice of more than one every five years or so. Not so interested in being able to race the same car up front year after year after year. On one hand I don't want to have a chassis of the year situation, on the other I don't like the continuing aging of the class.

FWIW, this is coming from someone who vintage races a Vee. Old cars, one set of rules for all the cars, but about a billion +/- a few, chassis to choose from. 3 or 4 of which seem to be capable of running up front.

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited November 30, 2004).]

[Karl Bocchieri]

What's amazing about this entire argument is that everyone who has a BMW is complaining about the restrictor, and you don't even know how it will affect the car yet! Have any of you had your car out on any track with the restrictor? I personally think your lucky, you should have gotten weight to bring the car close to stock weight like every one else.

[x-ring]

Originally posted by Karl Bocchieri:
...Have any of you had your car out on any track with the restrictor? I personally think your lucky, you should have gotten weight to bring the car close to stock weight like every one else.

Gee, you think maybe the plate won't do it? Look how effective it was in T3, er, I mean SSB.



------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

[dj10]

Originally posted by Karl Bocchieri:
What's amazing about this entire argument is that everyone who has a BMW is complaining about the restrictor, and you don't even know how it will affect the car yet! Have any of you had your car out on any track with the restrictor? I personally think your lucky, you should have gotten weight to bring the car close to stock weight like every one else.

You took the words right out of my mouth! It is only a matter of time until we E36 owners find out how this will effect us. I'm still optimistic that this comming year will bring some good close racing. A E36 with good components and well balanced, should still be strong. Lets not forget the driver.
Dan Jones

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Because, while focusing on the end result weight being within 100# (or 1/3 to 1/2% of the cars' weight) we are ignoring the fact that we are estimating HP--and those estimations will vary by a similar amount.

Daryl,

100# is 5% of the weight of a 2000# car. The IT-pre HP estimates are probably +/- 2.5%. That's a 5hp window on a 100hp car and a 10hp window on a 200hp car.



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

[Quickshoe]

[/Brainfart mode] I didn't even think to do the math with a calculator. For some reason, decided that 100# was 1/2% of 2000, and 1/3% of 3000, decimal obviously in wrong place in my head.

Now that you shot a big hole in my argument, my point isn't as strong...but I still say that when you have a large (relatively) margin of error in your first approximation, there isn't a need to calculate things down to the 3rd or 4th approximation.

Next time I'll use a calculator, or look at my figures for a second to see if they make sense...

[Spinnetti]

Originally posted by pgipson:
RX7 stays in ITA (for now??)

Since its already faster than the Corolla GT-S and MR2, it sure wouldn't be reasonable to reclass that without reclassing a whole bunch of other cars first - OR do you mean move to IT-S?

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Spinnetti:
Since its already faster than the Corolla GT-S and MR2, it sure wouldn't be reasonable to reclass that without reclassing a whole bunch of other cars first - OR do you mean move to IT-S?

I think that most avocates of moving the 7 down to B agree that there are other cars that should go as well. the rx7 is being talked about as there are plenty of well developed examples and lots of cars.
this of course is a double edged sword. a move would bring a large number of cars in to B that seems to need the help but a mistake with this many cars would be a big mistake. I certainly understand the ITAC being carefull even thought the hard data supports the move.
the one thing that need to be done with the toyotas is to confirm what the potential for the cars are. proof of what a well developed car in the hands of a good driver can do. in my area there are say 10 rx'7s one mr2 and no corollas.
find a couple of well done cars and make the request. you have my support.
dick patullo
ITA rx7
ner scca

[Ron]

From an ITB guy moving the RX-7 down to B you better add a bunch of weight. A quick peek at the ARRC information shows that the top 3 RX-7's were at least a second a lap faster.

Ron
Fairly Fast Ford Mustang ITB

[snk328is]

Hello, I'm an IT newb so please be gentle... I just got my novice permit and will attend my first race school this weekend. My car is a *gasp* ITS E36 325is. (Don't let my username fool you, the 328 is my daily driver.)

Anyway, my main concern is that if the restrictor plates lean out the engine beyond what the stock engine software is capable of handling, won't I be doing damage to the engine?

As a newbie, I've already made a significant investment and the prospect of having to get a custom tune on a dyno ($$$) is worrisome to say the least.

I know I'm making an assumption here, (we all know to "assume" is to make an "ass" out of "u" and "me"), but if indeed we need to custom tune our ECU's to accomodate for the lack of air, then the introductory cost of racing an E36 in ITS has jumped by close to $1,000. Not a lot of dough considering what you spend in the grand scheme of things, but that could've been $1,000 spent on an extra set of tires and rims, or better yet, a better cage.

If indeed the engine can adapt to the lack of air, then I guess my point is moot, and I'd be a happy camper and spend the money on tires or better cage. But the prospect of a custom tune is still scary to me.

Any thoughts on this?

[Narrative ON]
I chose the E36 325 explicitly because I wanted to be able to race in both BMW Club Racing and SCCA ITS.

In this area, we only have 3 BMW club races per year within a few hours' drive, so the fact that I could race in both sanctioning bodies was VERY appealing. Not to mention that I could also auto-x my race car (oh the horror! ) with my local BMW club every month, just for grins and to keep my reflexes sharp.

It was also appealing that the ITS prepped 325 was competitive in BMW club racing. The jury is still out whether this new plate will hurt the car in BMW club competition, but it can't help.

I do realize that I am writing all this in the company of folks that really don't care how any given car does in other sanctioning bodies' club race series. Nevertheless, I wanted to give you the perspective of a newcomer to the game and why I made the choice to race the 325.

Assuming (there goes that word again) that the restrictor plate does hurt the car in BMW club racing, I'm a little disappointed.

[Narrative OFF]

Thanks for listening!

Nobu
Soon to be E36 ITS 325is driver

[Ron Earp]

The plate will not over-ride what the stock BMW system is able to compensate for, no doubt. You've got a good MAF system that will compensate for the reduced flow. I suppose you already know to run with the big boys a Motec is used many times, which is much more than a custom "tune". A stock Shark (insert favorite BMW chips here) canned ECU program isn't going to cut it. Dynoing tuning I would think would be a norm around here, at least it is with the drag racing crowd and is certainly helpful.

And, I don't understand your comments along with one other's, that the restrictor plate will hurt them in BMW club racing. I am going to go out on a limb here and open myself for ridicule, but I've owned an E36 and if you can't put remove and install a restrictor plate in 10-15 minutes on an E36 inline six then I'm not sure you're ready to deal with the mechnical issues you'll encounter racing - unless you always use the Check Wrench. It is not permanent and you can remove it for BMW racing, put it on for ITS racing. So how can it hurt you in club racing if it is not there?

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 01, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 01, 2004).]

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by rlearp:
...the restrictor plate will hurt them in BMW club racing. I am going to go out on a limb here and open myself for ridicule, but I've owned an E36 and if you can't put remove and install a restrictor plate in 10-15 minutes on an E36 inline six then I'm not sure you're ready to deal with the mechnical issues you'll encounter racing - unless you always use the Check Wrench. It is not permanent and you can remove it for BMW racing, put it on for ITS racing. So how can it hurt you in club racing if it is not there?

Ron,

They can't remove it for BMW club racing and keep the car otherwise ITS legal.

The BMWCCA JP rules have some allowances that are more liberal than ITS rules, and some that are more strict. The BMWCCA JP entrants don't get to choose the best of both rule sets. The car either has to be ITS legal or BMWCCA legal...not a combination of both.

[Geo]

One of the Bimmerforums self-made gurus planted the fear of the plate in Nobu.

You can't remap in SS, right? So, if they could run the plates in SS, I would think he should be fine.


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

[Greg Amy]

Ron, what I think these guys are getting bent out of shape over, but which no one to date has adequately explained in this thread, is the following verbiage from the BMWCCA rules:

"Vehicles competing in SCCA classes Improved Touring, Touring 1, Touring 2 and Showroom Stock will participate in BMW CCA Club Racing adhering to either BMW CCA class rules or SCCA class rules, but not a combination of both."

Cars prepped to IT rules run in the Prepared class, which is similar to IT rules but allows cams, injectors, remote reservoir shocks, alternate master cylinders, 4-piston calipers, alternate brake rotors, lightened flywheel, spoilers and wings.

http://www.bmwccaclubracing.com/2004%20Ser...al_20041020.pdf

Basically, what they're saying is that this change within IT will affect them for BMWCCA racing as well. To which, of course, I reply, "sorry!"

Based on the level of prep allowed in BMWCCA Prepared, I don't see how an ITS E36 was competitive in there anyway... - GA

[robits325is]

Originally posted by GregAmy:

Based on the level of prep allowed in BMWCCA Prepared, I don't see how an ITS E36 was competitive in there anyway... - GA

At Lime Rock and NHIS an ITS/JP 325 won each JP race - largest class in the field - at least 10 other competitors.

[snk328is]

I thought the post below by Mlytle adequately explained the reason why the restrictor plate could not be removed.

Thus, I did not mention it in my post. (I was going to, but I didn't want to get flamed for being redundant. )

In any case, yeah, I agree. It's too bad, tough luck for us.

What I'm really hoping is that I can overcome this obstacle with my amazing driving! (Tongue fully in cheek.)

Originally posted by mlytle:
why? because of the the intricacies of bmw club rules. you can run either to the letter of scca its rule or the letter of the bmw prepared rules. either or, can't mix. if you prep your car to its rules, you have to leave the restrictor in, and may have things like brake valves and spherical bearings in your suspension. in bmw prep rules, you can't have those things, but can run hot cams and big brakes.
simply pulling the restrictor plate is not an option. end result...no more ability to have decent racing in both groups with same car. gotta choose.

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
...but which no one to date has adequately explained in this thread, is the following verbiage from the BMWCCA rules:

...BMW CCA class rules or SCCA class rules, but not a combination of both."

Based on the level of prep allowed in BMWCCA Prepared, I don't see how an ITS E36 was competitive in there anyway... - GA

Hey, I resemble that remark! I thought it was made clear in more than one post, not an exact quote, but none the less a point made more than once.

I'm not intimately familiar with all the rules in JP, but I did browse the same link (you are now pointing to) the other day. A few things that might be a big equalizer--no aftermarket ECU's, no port matching, and no .5 point compression bump allowed unless the allowed .040" over combined with a stock head just happens to give you that .5 bump.