Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 127

Thread: E-36 Restrictor Plate/Andy Bettencourt

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    29

    Default E-36 Restrictor Plate/Andy Bettencourt

    ANdy - I have heard for a while that for some reason you were on the warpath against us BMW's. THis makes little sense to me since you opted out of ITS to run your little Spex Maita. Maybe if Hendo or Rob or I had punted you at Limerock or NHIS, totaled your car, etc, I could understand.
    But I dont get it? What do you give a sh*t about what the guys do at Roebling or Atlanta? Our AutoTechnic cars are all legal. Fast, yes, exspensive, yes, but illegal? No. Face facts ANdy, times change, cars change, technology changes. The BMW 2002tii used to be THE car for ITA. But it eventually lost ground to newer cars like the Hondas. I bet Anthony Serra's car was illegal too tight? He beat the SH*T OUT OF EVERYONE IN ITA, so it must have been. I mean, he ran 1:02's at Limerock. 5 years ago a good ITA time was 1:03-1:04. Why are these Hondas, liek Anthony's so fast now?? Why? 1) Driver skill, 2) Car development.

    But I see you have led thaecharge and now you have helped spoil racing for all of us who chose, or could afford to choose, racing an E-36 BMW. Is that what you are upset about? WHy didnt you rail again Kip - he appears to race IT for a living, and seems to have a LOT of $$ to throw at plastic/lexan/fake wood trophies, but it never bothered you when none of the BMW's coul;d beat him. But now your beolved rotary powered cars (who's technology by the way is about 5-6 years senior to the E-36's) are getting beat, and you cant seem to handle it.
    As for all your facts and figures, I'd really, really like to hear your real reason behind this - since this decision will clearly affect ITS next year. I have even heard Nick may sit out the season because he'll have no competition unless Kip builds his 944. Here's what I (and I'm sure the rest of the E-36 world) want answers on...

    1) Why does the natural performance potential of the E-36 bother you so much?

    2) WHy do you think the cars are SO dominant in the Northeast, when Nick and Kip ran faster laps than almost all of the E-36's on a consistent basis?

    3) Kip and Nick drove 1:00 laps at LRP. Rob and Jeff got close but I dont recall them running that fast. The best I managed was a 1.01.7 or something. Nick and/or other Mazda RX-7's have the track records at LRP, NHIS, and Watkins Glen (long course)...HOW CAN YOU ARGUE THAT THE BMW E-36 is such a dominant car?

    4) ITS was a little more of a 3 BMWs vs 1 RX-7 show this year due to the fact that Kip had chosen to do other things this season. The BMW's could barely catch Kip in '03 and we had trouble catching Nick in '04. Yeah they are both fast, but so is Rob, so is Jeff and so am I. None of us ever walked away from a race and never looked back. Explain why we need plates to slow us down?

    5) IF you arent driving in ITS, WHY have you made this your sole mission in life?

    6) What do you do for a living other than spend time like a geeky hall monitor on this web board? Perhaps if you applied yourself to your method of gainful employment with the same passion you apply here, you would yourself be able to afford an E-36 with Motec. The fact is you would probably still run mid-pack. My sense is that guys who like to cry and whine about what otehrs are doing dont have potential to win races.
    So Andy, let me just say that the next time I run into you, I hope I'm driving (my E-36 HAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,083

    Default

    one of the things i like about this internet board is we usually don't get many jerks like this particualy unsigned
    dick patullo

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Why Dick, that added a lot to the discussion. Any opinion on ITS from the Formula Atlantic drivers?? Let's canvass all the HP guys too...but one of my points is that it seems a little strange for a guy who isn't racing in our class to have spent so much time and energy against one particular make, especially one that has had mixed success agains the mazda RX-7 in the Northeast. If that doesnt seem a bit out of line to you, then perhaps you have your helmet on backwards....

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    fishers,in, usa
    Posts
    118

    Default

    sounds like the original poster is doing all of the crying. I think he has a problem with competition adjustments when it effects him. I think it is important that there are adjustments every few to insure a competitive environment, and I do run in ITS and for the most part on the podium. So I am not a back marker looking for help as the origanil poster believes are they only ones pushing for competitve balance

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    What class does he run in? ITButthead?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Gee, when I first read this I thought it was a joke...

    on second thought, I guess I'll stick with my first thought.

    Earl

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    29

    Default

    TRD - dont think I know you, but maybe I do. I do know Andy and this whole thing agianst the E-36 strikes me as really weird. Like I said, the E-36 doesn NOT appear to dominate in the Northeast. As for me, back-marker, no I'm not. I had one win and a few podiums last year, and the same the year before. Whining, no I'm not. But it will force us to spend more time in the shop on development and as you know that means more $$ into the car, and no, I'm not happy about it. As another matter of fact, the RX-7s, especially Nick L (who I know, race against, and I consider a friend) would have had a better record were it not for some unfortunate mishaps that cost him a few races. The E-36's dominance (in NARRC) this year was actually a little affected by bad luck. So it is what it is guys, we'll try to appeal it, and time will tell....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Posts
    631

    Default

    If you look close, it appears that Andy was on the grassy knoll as well. Whether or not he knew Oswald is a matter for conjecture.



    Tom

    [This message has been edited by Tom Donnelly (edited December 06, 2004).]

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Upstate New York
    Posts
    1,033

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Renton, WA USA
    Posts
    1,625

    Default

    OK Guys... I've been REALLY trying to just stay out of this, but this is TOO MUCH!

    Based on REAL Dyno numbers that were sent to the CRB and the ITAC, the BMW turns out to be AT LEAST 100lbs or so UNDERWEIGHT in it's current ITS trim. This is determined by a process that involves comparing the specs of the car in question to a set of baselines, which for ITS includes the 240Z and the 2nd Gen RX-7.

    The BMW was originally classified at 2950lbs in ITS, and then through the some "devine" intervention", and using the cheesy excuse about a 100lb ballast limit, the car miraculously got an addjustment under "errors and ommissions" to 2850lbs.

    The numbers we were sent were for a Bimmerworld motor, but NOT an ALL OUT EFFORT Bimmerworld motor (i.e.: No Motec, and not a "to the gnats-ass" in development)... Just your good (maybe even 'very' good), "anybody with $$ could buy one" BMW motor, according the the gentlemans description of his car...

    So you can whine and cry all you want about how unfair life is in IT racing and the SCCA, but the facts are pretty clear... A fully developed BMW has specifications that put in in a wt/pwr class over a full point beyond ANYTHING else in ITS. I don't give a rip about results at this track or that... or between this car or that... This doesn't mean a hill of beans unless you have the same driver driving the cars under ALL of these conditions and for every sample being compared. Sorry guys, we aren't ALL Mario or Michael, regardless of how much money we spend...

    We are trying to get into the business of adjusting based on vehicle specifications and real world output values, not on whether or not someone put new tires on for a particular qualifying session...

    So, for the BMW the case is simple... A LOT of research was conducted and a lot of information was gathered. The trends in the data show that the car is either misclassified, or mispec'd. It simple makes TOO much HP for the class, and doesn't give that up in any other area.

    The ITAC recommended a weight adjustment, the CRB opted to go with a restrictor. Either way, the BMW drivers weren't going to be happy, but you can't keep everyone happy.

    I have my doubts that a 56mm restrictor is going to have any effect on these cars, since I don't believe that the Throttle-body is the restriction point for this intake system. Time will tell...

    In the meantime, put the damn plate on and go race with the rest of the group. If you want to compete with just other BMWs, then there is always BMWCCA...

    Our goal is to try to get more than one car capable of winning a particular class, and this is just one in hopefully many steps that we have taken to try to do this. Wow, what a concept... now you can buy a BMW, Acura, RX-7, 240Z, or TR-8 ( ) and have a shot at an ITS title... Yah, sounds shitty to me!



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

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,193

    Default

    Well, shoot, it appears I have some work to do to my subframe/rear suspension over the winter if I want to keep up with the #11 car! Oh, but wait, that's right, that'll be more time in the shop, therefore more $$$ and I should cry about the cost of racing going up!

    As for the $25, I'll spring for it in a second! Heck, I'd probably even pre-write the thing and include the pictures from this website, just so Tech knew exactly where to look!

    It is funny, though. I don't remember seeing the #11 car at the ARRC. I wonder why that is...

    ------------------
    Bill
    Planet 6 Racing
    bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

    [This message has been edited by planet6racing (edited December 06, 2004).]

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oregon City OR.
    Posts
    1,550

    Default

    <font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">As for the $25, I'll spring for it in a second!</font>
    I am in.....I tried hard to find this allowance in the ITCS....Did I miss something?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    newington, ct
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Just curious, why are you calling Andy out specifically here? Maybe I don't know something that others do here? Shouldn't you at least direct your complaints to both boards that are responsible for this? Or if it was specifically because of Andy's crusade as you call it, why not just contact him directly? He seems like the type of guy that would be willing to at least hear you out. Not that it really matters, but what is your name?

    I can understand you being upset with the plate, but a post like that doesn't do much for your cause. Your # 6 - WTF? Essentially what you are saying is that someone who enjoys talking about racing on this board has no life? Sorry, but my wife doesn't exactly care to hear much about my racing. Ah, forget it. This just isn't worth it.

    ------------------
    Dave Gran
    NER ITB #13
    '87 Honda Prelude si

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Flagtown, NJ USA
    Posts
    6,335

    Default

    John (I assume JWS is John Stewart)

    <font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Let's canvass all the HP guys too</font>


    Since you asked!

    Being a tad melodramatic aren't you? "Spoil" racing for the E36 folks? PLEASE!

    Your #6 point just shows how much of a jackass crybaby you are. The 'run into you' comment just reinforces it.

    You guys (E36's) got off easy w/ just the restrictor, IMHO. As I've stated before, those cars really don't belong in IT, as they sure don't fit the PP&I of the category.

    As far as those subframes, I'm in on that one too. And I guess I missed it when the E36 ITS cars were allowed to run 8" wide wheels.

    Oh, and in case you didn't see this in the ITCS.

    <font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Entrants shall not be guaranteed the compeitiveness of any car...</font>


    Darin's right (ok, nobody have a heart attack), car specs should be set based on how they stack up w/ the performance envelope of the class. Track results shouldn't mean squat!! They may however, provide the impetus to re-evaluate a car's specs, to see if they are consistent w/ the class performance envelope.

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

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    The teacher in me wants to say something like, "Next year, whey you're in the 7th grade, they are going to expect you to behave much more maturely."

    Seriously - IF Andy has been vocal about getting the e36 reined in, it is BETTER that he is not running in ITS. There's no conflict of interest involved, which is a good thing. Now on the other hand, we can hardly expect jwsbmw325 to be impartial, can we?

    K

    PS - that subframe pic is hysterical!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    alexandria, va
    Posts
    851

    Default

    Originally posted by Bill Miller:

    Entrants shall not be guaranteed the compeitiveness of any car...



    [/b]
    come on now bill,
    if that line were true we wouldn't be having this discussion because there would not be a restrictor plate to deal with......

    marshall

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Flagtown, NJ USA
    Posts
    6,335

    Default

    Originally posted by mlytle:
    come on now bill,
    if that line were true we wouldn't be having this discussion because there would not be a restrictor plate to deal with......

    marshall

    Why's that Marshall? If there's a defined performance envelope for the class, and a car is outside that envelope, and can't be moved up (or down), why wouldn't weight/restrictor be applied to bring it back w/in the envelope? Really has nothing to do w/ competitiveness, but has everything to do w/ fitting the envelope of the class.

    BTW, I hope someone saved copies of those pics. I wouldn't be surprised to see them taken down.

    But, if you really want to take it to the extreme, why do we have more than one class?

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

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    fishers,in, usa
    Posts
    118

    Default

    I agee with Bill Miller. The line "enterants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car" should be applied to a car not the class. The board will not make adjustment to a particular car or model to make it more competitve. They will simply offer a place or class to run in. However, it should be the direction of the board to make sure that the class should be as level as possible and not have a car that exceeds the parameters of the class. The board should have the responsiblity to its members to evaluate cars in a given class to ensure to level competitive field.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    alexandria, va
    Posts
    851

    Default

    the line doesn't say anything about classes or envelopes. it says there is no guarantee your car will be competitive. if you bring a car to play and it gets trounced, oh well.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •