January FasTrack is up!

[mlytle]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
As in all of racing, mid pack cars need to do their homework, just as they needed to before...

I strongly suspect the fast BMWs will continue to win.......perhaps not as often. And the "mid pack" BMWs will continue to be mid pack...unless they do more homework.

oh cool, us "midpack" drivers with 9.5 / 10 built e36 cars will now have to invest $4k in a motec to keep up with the 30 year old z cars with drum brakes. sounds like a good investment to me. not.

this isn't the first, but gotta love scca rule changes that cost competitors thousands of dollars in new costs and even more in reduced value of the car.

[Ron Earp]

That said, the current weight DOES seem to be proper for the car from a handleing and braking standpoint. So, adding weight was probably not the ideal move.[/B]

Jake, I respect your opinion but I disagree on the weight. If one takes a look at "Racer Jakes" IT list (I don't have a GCR handy) then one could find a lot of cars that could benefit from a "weight adjustment" such as what the BMW got. From a new guy that doesn't know squat it appears to me that someone decided to make the BMWs competitive, for whatever reason I do not know. If it raced at 3000 to 3200 lbs, slightly LESS than street weight like the other cars, I don't think it'd be an IT overdog and it'd have some inherient problems, like a lot of the other cars on the list.

As it stands, at 2850, the weight masks the problems and allows it to shine. I wonder if some other folks would like to have a chance for their car to shine?

I wonder if the following would like 100-200lbs shaved off?

VR6 GTIs
MX-6 Mazdas/Ford Probes
I bet 100lbs off a 240sx would do wonders
VR6 Jettas sure look porky (owned one of these)
V6 Ford Contours (Good motor)
Supra - I'd say it is racing at street weight. Hmmmmmm...

And then other cars that aren't classed but could do battle at lower weights but nobody would think of running them since 3300+ is way too high. But, it wouldn't be too high if there is a weight adjustment for them.

I do not mean to cause trouble, I'm just trying to make some sense of a single car that seems to have caused a lot of people to write a lot of posts over the short time I've been on the board.

I would be cool if there was a sort of "formula" to get an idea of where a car should be classed. Water under the bridge I suppose, but, the next IT race I attend to watch I'll be maying attention to where the BMWs are. The last few races I've been to (since June 2003 off and on) they have been way up front with only a 2nd Gen RX7 within striking distance.




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

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by seckerich:
I have to run with these cars all the time and can tell you that I loose 10 to 15 carlengths down the back side of VIR. I ran with Nicks RX7 driven by Kip at Roebling Road recently and his car is very close to mine and you state his car is considered the benchmark in his area.

Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
Southeast

Steve,

Excellent factual info. As you know, Kip is an excellent driver and Nick's car is within 2-3whp of ANY numbers we have had quoted by Syl at SpeedSource. Good racing at Roebling. The RX-7 is at Sebring this weekend.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by mlytle:
oh cool, us "midpack" drivers with 9.5 / 10 built e36 cars will now have to invest $4k in a motec to keep up with the 30 year old z cars with drum brakes. sounds like a good investment to me. not.

this isn't the first, but gotta love scca rule changes that cost competitors thousands of dollars in new costs and even more in reduced value of the car.

How is it different for the RX-7 guys, or the E30 guys, or the GSR guys? It has cost many thousands of dollars trying to keep up with the E36. When you throw a car in that disrups the class like this, the whole class suffers, not just YOUR wallet when the playing field gets leveled.

If you actually think that your E36 has LOST value because of this move, then it MUST HAVE BEEN an overdog. To have a car be 1 of a few legitimate choices in a class should keep it's value right where it belongs.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited November 27, 2004).]

[ed325its]

Andy,

You agree with me, make additional statements, and still provide no proof. What documentation exists that Kip's E36 dyno'ed at 208 Whp? What documentation exists that an East Coast tuner is quoteing 215Whp - 220 Whp?

I disagree that the ITAC and/or the CRB should not reveal the data, method, and end goal used in this process. No commitee of this club should operate in secrecy. The results either stand on there own or they don't. Those methods should then be applied to all auto's and not just the percevied overdogs. Otherwise the process remains very political.

------------------
Ed Tisdale
#22 ITS '95 325is
Racing BMW's since 1984

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
when the playing field gets leveled.

when the playing field gets leveled...that is pretty funny. there are what? three cars that are in the "competitive" group in its out of the couple pages that are classified? putting a restrictor plate on just e36's ain't helping that situation. those three cars are the only ones the top ita cars can't beat. some wholesale reclassing is in order, not just a targeting of the e36.

[wburstein]

Boy, I just got back from vacation and see I missed quite a bit ;-)

I think some of you are mixing apples and oranges. A 10/10ths RX7 or 240Z cannot run with a 10/10ths E36 under the pre-2005 rules. That has left the 8-9/10ths E36 drivers competitive with the 10/10ths Datsun, Mazda, Porsche and Acura drivers. Hopefully, the new restrictor plate for the E36 cars will bring them into the same performance envelope with four or five other cars and avoid us having a one car class (with similar drivers). It will probably take a couple of years for this to shake out, but I suspect that the E36 will remain the best car in the class, but only by a tiny margin.

There is nothing more frustrating than buying an engine from one of the best builders in the country, dyno tuning it, and having an inexperienced driver decimate you on the track due to acceleration on the straights. At VIR, one of James Clay's (rented) cars was leaving Oak Tree at least five miles an hour slower than I was, but still pulling me by over 10 car lengths at the end of the straight. It took laps to get by him and I was HOT under the collar by then...

I also wanted to point out that mlyttle has many other issues besides the restrictor plate if he wants to run both SCCA and BMWCCA events. From his post, the restrictor plate seems like the least of his worries in coming up with a common configuration or making easy changes between events. Since both of us race in the same series, along with a couple of the top E36 cars in the country, it should be interesting to see what effect the new rule has.

For the record, I would have preferred that the SCCA develop a new IT class for the cars that have too much performance potential for the rest of the cars in ITS.

------------------
Wayne Burstein
WDC Region, ITS #10, Datsun 240Z
www.mountainmotorsports.net

[This message has been edited by wburstein (edited November 27, 2004).]

[seckerich]

I read all the posts that ITS is a 3 car field as far as front runners but don't see the proof to back it up. At the SIC we had BMW, Mazda, Prelude's,240SX, and Z cars all in the hunt. The 240SX is really getting fast in the hands of good drivers as proved at Roebling recently. We had 4 cars never seperated by more than 200 ft the whole race. Thats a far cry from what this year has been.

Steve Eckerich
ITS Speedsource Mazda RX7
Southeast

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by ed325its:
Andy,

You agree with me, make additional statements, and still provide no proof. What documentation exists that Kip's E36 dyno'ed at 208 Whp? What documentation exists that an East Coast tuner is quoteing 215Whp - 220 Whp?

I disagree that the ITAC and/or the CRB should not reveal the data, method, and end goal used in this process. No commitee of this club should operate in secrecy. The results either stand on there own or they don't. Those methods should then be applied to all auto's and not just the percevied overdogs. Otherwise the process remains very political.

Ed,

What proof do you need? When Kip has his 944S out next year, pull him aside and ASK him what his E36 put to the ground. He will tell you. He will also tell you how he got the power, where he dynoed the car and how long it took him to get it there. I know his dyno guy. I will ask him if it's ok to contact him and see if he has the files available.

As far as the DIRECT quote from the East coast tuner, do you want it in transcript form or an actual taped phone conversation? We can get with Kip on that one too. Seriously, if you don't believe the numbers, just say so. THEN tell us all what you have done to your motor and we can compare line by line what the difference is between the 10/10ths stuff and the 9/10ths stuff.

If you think the members on this board are acting in secrecy, then I hate to think what the perception was in the past. How is this:

The E36 was classed in ITS. After some initial weight shuffling, it settled in at 2850.

Rumors of very powerful cars started surfacing. Lap times and straight-away speeds started validationg those rumors.

Top drivers in RX-7's and 240Z's started migrating to the E36. Top tuners started perfecting their formulas for power.

3 years in a row E36's have dominated the ARRC (in 2002 the top cars were booted for a ballast technicality, domination none-the-less).

Dyno sheets and conversations with tuners have confirmed power outputs. Very powerful and expensive RX-7's, 240Z's and GSR's get eaten alive on long straights. A combination of an under-estimation of the stock power level and, it would seem, an under-estimation of the power potential in IT trim have created an overdog, not a perceived one, but an actual one.

In IT trim, the Bimmer has a power to weight of 11.4. The RX-7 is 13.0. Others are worse than that. That is a 15% difference in P/W. HUGE.

Again, I am providing NUMBERS based on information. Tell me how you would like to see the proof and I will work on it. I certainly understand that people may want to know but until you have gone 10/10ths, I don't feel anyone has grounds to dispute the data we have HONESTLY obtained, until they can provide some to the contrary. You have the RIGHT to do anything, but in good faith, I say no.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[ed325its]

Andy,

I am confused. I stated that I did not agree, as some on this thread have suggested, that the committe should be allowed to operate in secret. I made no statements that I believe they do now or have in the past, and I truly hope you nor any of the committee volunteers did not think I did.

All I am asking for is the knowledge and documentation the ITAC board used in their deliberations. Driver's statements of comparison perceptions and conjecture about the level of preparation of specific cars is not proof nor documentation. You again state that dyno sheets exist. Do you know if they were seen and considered by either committe? If so, should they not be public? Is there a club policy against them becoming public? Perhaps I do not understand the method and operation of this group. If they are not to become public then tell us all and the thread is ended.

I have not in my posts disputed the data. I have seen no data to dispute. As a club member I do not believe the opportunity to understand the process and see the documentation should depend on the perception that I have met the 10/10ths level of preparation. So, I guess I'll have to do more engine development than just changing the oil and the spark plugs.

If you would like to continue this off-line please feel free to contact me.

------------------
Ed Tisdale
#22 ITS '95 325is
Racing BMW's since 1984

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Originally posted by mlytle:before this change we could be competitive with e36's prepped to bmw jp rules. not any more.</font>

Marshall,

Not for nothing, but what does one series have to do w/ the other? The fact that you have an additional series to race in, and that you can be competitive in that series w/o any changes to your car, is, IMHO, a really nice bonus that not many people have. To come here and complain that a rule change that addresses a strongly perceived inequity in one series, because it impacts a totally unrelated series (that many in the first series can't participate in), is disingenuous at best.

Andy,

I'm really not trying to make this argumentative, so please don't take it that way. You stated that the CRB made the call on the restrictor and the size. You make it sound as if that was not necessarily the recommendation of the ITAC. I'm not sure why the CRB would analyze data from Pro (WC), rather than pass it on to the ITAC. And while I'm not up on SS, didn't they only take one swipe at the restrictor on the Z4 this year, and will now reduce it, in size, even further for '05, due to JL's performance at the Runoffs this year?

And while I'm sure there's lots of WC data, is it really a valid correlation? If you look at the WC data against the SS data, do you see a similar regression line? After all, WC and SS both have different prep levels than IT. For example, I'm guessing that the SSB Z4 was already flow-restricted on the exhaust side, which is why the restrictor that was added for '04, didn't really slow the cars down that much.

I'm not convinced by the arguement that the restrictor was the right way to go, because the power was what needed to be brought into line. Let me explain why I think that way. Obviously, the current brake system is up to the task of the ~220 whp that the top cars are believed to be making. If not, they wouldn't be able to take advantage of it. The suspension system is what it is, and has a performance boundry that is not impacted by how much slower/faster the car is, or what the brake efficiency is. You've got to get the car slowed down to w/in the performance boundry, or you're not going to make the corner. Granted, an increase in weight will probably lower this boundry.

Now, on to the brakes. Since they are currently adequate at xxx terminal velocity, using only a restrictor to reduce that terminal velocity, will, in fact, make the brakes 'better'. If it takes the car zzz feet to go from xxx mph (terminal velocity) to yyy mph (determined by the suspension performance boundry), it will take <zzz feet to reach that reach that same yyy "cornering speed", if the terminal velocity (zzz) is reduced, given no change in the car's weight.

Sure, the cars won't be going as fast at the end of the straight, but they'll be able to brake deeper. Not to mention that the brakes will be doing less work, as they have a smaller delta(speed) that they have to achieve. So, while lap times may go up, they may not go up as much as expected, as the increase in lap time attributed to lower terminal velocity will be offset by the improved braking and subsequent ability to stay at terminal velocity longer.

I'll ask the question again, what's the target weight for the car, as predicted by the process, assuming the 'normal' power gain by IT prep? Pretend that you don't have any idea what the real whp number is, and treat it as if it were just being classed. This should at least get us closer to understanding if the initial weight was truly off, or that the car really does make that much more power than you would expect.

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'll ask the question again, what's the target weight for the car, as predicted by the process, assuming the 'normal' power gain by IT prep?

Bill, I understand why you wish to know, but really, publishing that would now be very much counter-productive. There is lots of second-guessing going on and that's be to understood I think. But to discuss alternatives considered after the fact is probably not the best thing at this point. Remember, PCAs allow further adjustments if we feel the first one does not meet expectations.

This is not so much a matter of secret back-room meetings, but the fact that A) we could beat two horses to death on this matter and then beat them again this is not necessarily played out (ref. previous mention of how PCAs work). I think you will find that the ITAC and CRB will continue to monitor this situation and will follow discussions on it. But I honestly don't think we'll put current thinking on an active subject out in public.

It may not be the answer you would like to hear for one or many reasons. But it's an honest answer Bill.


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

[Bill Miller]

George,

This is EXACTLY why I support an open, published classification process. As Kirk pointed out, this kind of thing creates the perception that things are not entirely above board.

Your response has also opened the door for lots of speculation.

Opt. 1 - Don't want to publish it because the current weight is below what the process would predict, and don't want people asking why it wasn't brought up to that weight first.

Opt. 2 - Already above what's predicted, and don't want people complaining that the car is already too heavy (Don't see this as being valid in light of how PCA's are supposed to work).

Opt. 3 - At the predicted weight (+/- 50#), see Opt. 2.

IMHO, by keeping this stuff under wraps, you open yourself up for a lot more grief than if it's out in the open.

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

This is EXACTLY why I support an open, published classification process. As Kirk pointed out, this kind of thing creates the perception that things are not entirely above board.

Your response has also opened the door for lots of speculation.

Opt. 1 - Don't want to publish it because the current weight is below what the process would predict, and don't want people asking why it wasn't brought up to that weight first.

Opt. 2 - Already above what's predicted, and don't want people complaining that the car is already too heavy (Don't see this as being valid in light of how PCA's are supposed to work).

Opt. 3 - At the predicted weight (+/- 50#), see Opt. 2.

IMHO, by keeping this stuff under wraps, you open yourself up for a lot more grief than if it's out in the open.

I firmly believe that no matter what goes/went into the decision, there will be plenty of grief to go around. The other option I suppose is to just totally ignore your request for that information and not give you an honest answer. That would also be a source of grief. I'm not complaining mind you, I'm just telling you what I personally think.

As for being above board, I think the current ITAC has been about as above board as such a committee can be and actually accomplish something. So far it seems the membership has been largely happy with the changes that have been made to IT. We always knew this issue would be one that would raise a lot of discussion regardless of what decision was taken. And we don't know if this issue is fully played out yet.

If nothing else, I think 2005 is going to be an exciting year in IT.


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

[JeffYoung]

Do I disagree with some of the changes made for 05? Yes. On the whole, am I pleased that we are no longer in "stasis" in IT, and we have an ITAC that will spend hours discussing things with us? HELL YES.

Rock on boys, and good job.

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Originally posted by Geo:As for being above board, I think the current ITAC has been about as above board as such a committee can be and actually accomplish something.</font>

George,

First off, I said perception. Also, your comment incates that you don't believe that a committee such as the ITAC can be totally above board, and get anything accomplished. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, that's just the way I read it.

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

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...what does one series have to do w/ the other? The fact that you have an additional series to race in, and that you can be competitive in that series w/o any changes to your car, is, IMHO, a really nice bonus that not many people have. To come here and complain that a rule change that addresses a strongly perceived inequity in one series, because it impacts a totally unrelated series (that many in the first series can't participate in), is disingenuous at best.

I think the last thing he is being, is disingenous. He is telling you that he has enjoyed the option of being able to compete in two series, now with this change, he can't and expect to remain competitive. Since he can't, he will choose which one to compete in...how is that disingenious?

I relate it to the choice I made when purchasing my FFord (and my Vee). I bought a model (Crossle 32F) that was eligible to race with the Vintage club in my area (VARA) and was very competitive there, while also being able to race with SCCA (SF in CSCC region) if I chose to, a very competitve model there as well. Not only did having that option give me some flexibility, it also meant that when I sold the car I would have twice the potential market. Not a bad thing and certainly weighed my original decision to purchase that cars. If VARA implemented a rule(s) that would not allow my car to also participate in the SCCA at a similar competitive level than I would have made a choice to run with one series or the other.

Granted, I don't believe that the SCCA has a responsibility to its' members to maintain dual eligibility in its' rules. Nor should they make rules that aren't in the best interest of the majority of their members for the benifit of the minority. They do need to be aware, however, when fighting for the racers dollars (a battle that they are losing out here) how such decisions may affect their entries.

-Daryl DeArman
Caldwell D13 Vee



[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited November 28, 2004).]

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
[B] I think the last thing he is being, is disingenous. He is telling you that he has enjoyed the option of being able to compete in two series, now with this change, he can't and expect to remain competitive. Since he can't, he will choose which one to compete in...how is that disingenious?

I didn't get that. I responded to his first post about with the restrictor then he couldn't run both. I pointed out that you could easily pull it off, then he mentioned bearings, cams, etc.

Well, different cams weren't legal before the restrictor plate and aren't legal now, so that makes no sense. One single rule change with a restrictor plate should not preclude someone from running in both series, providing the car is legal in both to begin with. It is a 5 minute job to pull the plate on and off, no problem.

One may have to accept that fact that a single car may or may not be competitive in both series when prepped to the lowest common demoninator.



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

[Ron Earp]

Double post

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 28, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
I think the last thing he is being, is disingenous. He is telling you that he has enjoyed the option of being able to compete in two series, now with this change, he can't and expect to remain competitive. Since he can't, he will choose which one to compete in...how is that disingenious?

I relate it to the choice I made when purchasing my FFord (and my Vee). I bought a model (Crossle 32F) that was eligible to race with the Vintage club in my area (VARA) and was very competitive there, while also being able to race with SCCA (SF in CSCC region) if I chose to, a very competitve model there as well. Not only did having that option give me some flexibility, it also meant that when I sold the car I would have twice the potential market. Not a bad thing and certainly weighed my original decision to purchase that cars. If VARA implemented a rule(s) that would not allow my car to also participate in the SCCA at a similar competitive level than I would have made a choice to run with one series or the other.

Granted, I don't believe that the SCCA has a responsibility to its' members to maintain dual eligibility in its' rules. Nor should they make rules that aren't in the best interest of the majority of their members for the benifit of the minority. They do need to be aware, however, when fighting for the racers dollars (a battle that they are losing out here) how such decisions may affect their entries.

-Daryl DeArman
Caldwell D13 Vee

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited November 28, 2004).]

Sorry Daryl, I just don't see it that way. We're talking about SCCA rules for an SCCA category. I don't really give a hang about how those rules impact the competitvness of the car in another series. And if an ITS-prep E36 could compete w/ a BMWCCA E36 w/ open cams and larger brakes, I see that as supporting evidence for the car probably being an overdog in ITS.

The way I see it, the BMWCCA is throwing its members a bone by allowing them to compete in cars prepared to another series' rules. How often do you see the SCCA do that? I see it as his wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Disingenuous, especially in light of how much of a perceived (and apparently validated) overdog the car is in ITS.


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