E-36 Restrictor Plate/Andy Bettencourt

[dj10]

[quote]Originally posted by rlearp:
Maybe the repairs are correct, but, I suppose the question would be how many E36 ITS cars have these "repairs". If #11 is the only car then fine. But if many cars have identical repairs then you know something is fishy. I would think it easier and quicker to pull pieces from cars in yards instead of making repairs, there are plently of E36s around.

[/QUOTE

In all honestly, the repair to the sub frames suggested by BMW is the cheapest and the best way to solve this know problem. Yes this rule opens the strengthing of these areas to all BMW E36's....but you don't want this to happen on a fast long high G turn. So saftey is a major factor to consider. I don't know yet on the reinforcement of the rear sway bar brackets. I'm still looking into that.
DJ #10 ITS E36

[RSTPerformance]

jwsbmw325
Member posted December 07, 2004 10:49 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
doesnt matter, it is what it is. If the plate rule is administered for 05 - we'll have one in there and we'll do our best. Nick is right, I am sure that the Bimmerworld cars and the other guys in teh SOuth have expanded the envelope on the motors. We dont run Motec for example. I felt the competittion was pretty fair in teh Northeast, maybe not in the South or other regions.

[JeffYoung]

DJ, there are MANY weaknesses on my car that are safety issues, the primary one being the brakes. If the manufacturer were still around, and I could convince them that tiny discs and drums out back were insufficient to stop the car and they "authorized" a "repair" of bigger, ventilated discs all around, would I be legal?

Extreme case, but think about it. I'm not sure factory authorized upgrades should be an allowed modification. All cars come from the factory with weaknesses. Should'nt we be stuck with them?

[Ron Earp]

Interesting points on "repair/replacement" directives on cars if they are legal or not.

I have three that I know of on my car, one of which I'd really like to perform - it involves camshafts, the directive was put out in 1975. I'll be watching with interest.

Ron

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
That "repair" raises an interesting issue. Rear subframe failures are a known issue on E36s. BMW has, if I recall correctly, authorized the above strengthening, etc. as a repair of a known "stock" fault. Is THAT legal? A factory authorized repair that goes beyond what was stock on the car?

If so, that opens a pretty big door

I'd have to do a little research on this to be certain, but I'd guess it would require a TSB to be considered legal.


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

[JohnRW]

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
DJ, there are MANY weaknesses on my car that are safety issues, the primary one being the brakes.

Beware of calling a design or performance issue a 'safety issue'. Slippery slope. Many have tried this approach, many have failed.

Ever look at the front brakes in a 240Z ? How about control arms in 944's ? How about front hubs in A1 and early A2 VW's, or front rotor/hub assemblies in Mazda rotaries, or Neons ? Just because we can stress something to the breaking point, or postpone a 'maintenance replacement, or that the performance of one system (brakes) might not match the performance of another (engine) doesn't make it a 'safety' issue.

Pandora's box.

My recent favorite was a Fastrak proposal, from SCCA Pro, to beef up the door-bar requirement in ALL Club Spec Miatas. The 'safety issue' was that, sometimes, the Pro Spec Miatas share practice sessions with the WC cars, and that they needed extra protection from the heavier artillery in WC.

So...SCCA Pro's scheduling problem transmogrified into a 'safety issue' with Spec Miata. Lets have all 600-800 SM's add a bunch of new door structure because SCCA Pro can't find their ass with both hands and get schedules right, for about 30-40 Pro series cars.

Riiiiight.



[This message has been edited by JohnRW (edited December 07, 2004).]

[dj10]

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
DJ, there are MANY weaknesses on my car that are safety issues, the primary one being the brakes. If the manufacturer were still around, and I could convince them that tiny discs and drums out back were insufficient to stop the car and they "authorized" a "repair" of bigger, ventilated discs all around, would I be legal?

Should'nt we be stuck with them?

Ron & Jeff,
I understand both of your points of view...but if I read the ITCS GCR correctly, if your model, make, same body type can update components. At least that is what I read on page 6 ITCS paragraph C. It also reads:
"Parts or assemblies which the manufacturer lists in factory service manuels or parts guides for a particular model which supercede or replace original parts or assemblies are permitted." also in ITCS page 20 par. h. states:
"All chassis/structural/electrical repair, if performed, shall be in concurrence with factory procedures, specifications and dimensions." etc. etc. etc.
LOL but I have been wrong before.....hehe.
DJ

[Ron Earp]

I understand what you are saying, but I don't read it that way - even though it adversely affects what I could do.

JH no longer makes cars. Lotus made the motors, so, Lotus provides parts for them even now. But, Lotus came out with a lot of technical service bulletiens, two of which could really affect what I do:

1) All previous 907 (JH motor),910,912 (NA and turbo) heads have been superceeded by the "Zeus" head.

What this means is that I could use a big valve, big port, head on my 907. It would seriously help since the 907 head is small.

2) All previous camshafts on 907 (JH motor),910 motors have been replaced with XXXX cam.

I can't remember the part number but it is a cam with 0.14 more lift and a better profile than my stock JH cam. Would really help with (1) above.

I'd love to do these things but I personally think it is a big stretch.

But, I also think those BMW "repairs" I saw in the photographs were a stretch too.

Maybe I need to stretch to be competitive, but I'm a novice and will err on the safe side. If those repairs are not in a BMW Factory Service manual, shown in black and white, with a paragraph that says something like "replace with new pieces of repair as shown" then I would think them illegal. And, that still doesn't answer the question of if repairs can legally be fitted where there is no problem? When do you do the repair? When the car is broken? Or, is it s preventive repair?

Ron "Looking for Zeus Heads Now" Earp


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

[dj10]

JH no longer makes cars. Lotus made the motors, so, Lotus provides parts for them even now. But, Lotus came out with a lot of technical service bulletiens, two of which could really affect what I do:

1) All previous 907 (JH motor),910,912 (NA and turbo) heads have been superceeded by the "Zeus" head.

What this means is that I could use a big valve, big port, head on my 907. It would seriously help since the 907 head is small.

2) All previous camshafts on 907 (JH motor),910 motors have been replaced with XXXX cam.

I can't remember the part number but it is a cam with 0.14 more lift and a better profile than my stock JH cam. Would really help with (1) above.

But, I also think those BMW "repairs" I saw in the photographs were a stretch too.

Ron,
When talking engines you must replace the entire component, like the long block.
If your sawy bar had a warning that they were prone to break on high speed turns, would you wait until it breaks before you replaced it?
Dan

[Knestis]

Apropos of nothing - I STILL love to say that - I think both the BMW subframe and Zeus head have valid cases if, as Geo pointed out, someone can show that they have official factory service bulletins documenting their "repair" and "supercession," respectively...

These are pointedly NOT cases made on "safety" grounds by some kind of special-case clase: They fall under the clauses cited above.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 07, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

JohnRW makes an excellent point about various component failures. The A1 VW (as well as the other cars mentioned) have been dealing w/ front hub failures for years. Not going to get a change in the rules to correct (although, I still want to know how the Olds/Pontiac Quad 4 folks got the Saturn bits).

As far as repairing stuff that's not broken, I don't see how that's legal. The rules state repair. How do you repair what isn't broken?

jws,

The 8" wheel comment came from what's posted on the Auto Technic website. It states 12 15x8 SSR Comps.

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

[JeffYoung]

That's my point exactly. Hard to see how a component failure is a safety issue. You just have to work around it.

I go through brake caliper seals in a weekend. Sure would like bigger calipers, pads and discs as a safety upgrade.........

[Ron Earp]

Sooooooooo...

The suspension piece break, presumably because they were poorly designed. Furthermore, racing puts stress on them and causes premature failure.

Someone says that the BMW shop manual shows this repair, so for the moment assume that is true (I've never seen a shop manual that showed fabrication of parts as a factory repair, but, I learn something new most days. However, my E36 Cylmer manual didn't mention this at all, but it isn't a BMW shop manual). I could see doing the repair after the part has broken, but, the car shown in the photographs has the "repairs" done while being built, on all four corners. Did the other shop prepped cars have the same "repairs"? Seems like lots of folks will be looking at E36s on the grid for this sort of thing. Might want to check for a washer bottle too, I didn't see that.

Heck, how far does this go? Lotus 907 motors that I have to use have bad oiling problems. Later 910/912 motors don't. If I needed a factory replacement motor and ordered one from Lotus I'd get big valve heads, agressive cams, and no oiling problems if I ordered one tomorrow. While this might be legal (to some), it definitely isn't in the sprirt of the rules, not legal to me, and I don't think those BMW "repairs" are legal either.

My opinion, humble that is.

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

[Quickshoe]

How do you prove it wasn't broken prior to repair?



------------------
Daryl DeArman
ex ITA and EProd 1st gen Rx7 and ITA Mk1 MR2
current owner of a FV, who still visits this site because the Vee forums aren't near as fun.--and no there isn't anything to do on my Vee right now or I'd be doing it

[lateapex911]

I am struck by the bashing Andy was given, and the cavalier attitude displayed by the author when called on it. Pretty sad.

On the subject of the rear subframe, it strikes me that any of us who have concerns regarding legality, or the appearance of legality, would have merely swapped it for a known good one (of which there are plenty), and moved on.

Regarding "typos", was this diatrabe a typo?:
"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. "

I am amazed at Andy's measured response. Better than deserved.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 07, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited December 07, 2004).]

[JeffYoung]

Pretty clear they are repaired as opposed to replaced because the repair is stronger.....make of that what you will.

[Greg Amy]

From the ITCS:

"...cars will be ...prepared to manufacturer’s specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules."

"Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage."

"To establish the originality and configuration of the vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a factory shop manual..."

So, am I to assume that it's AutoTechnica's position that any "repair" procedure or replacement part listed in the factory shop manual is legal for use in SCCA Improved Touring? Further, can anyone provide to us this so-called factory documentation?

If this was purely a "repair procedure", then why is it documented as a "reinforcement" on your web site, is done to BOTH the front subframe and the differential mount, and is proudly displayed on the spec line of your car prep ("we started with some abused piece-of-crap cars, and here's the repairs we had to make on it! You shoulda seen the FRAME DAMAGE we had to repair...!!!")

If these are "standard" repair procedures, why does the BMWCCA rules state the following:

"Additional welding of sway bar pick-up points and trailing arm pick-up points for reinforcement and safety is allowed...Front sub-frame, motor mount areas, control arm pick-ups, idler arm and steering box mounts can be strengthened for safety with additional welding."

Clever, at best. Disingenuous, more likely.

"Lame", without a doubt.

[Ron Earp]

Clever, at best. Disingenuous, more likely.

[B]

Greg, "Clever at best" comes to mind, but to me it appears illegal - clear and simple. I'd love to weld supports on my subframe since I can bend pieces of it with my hand.

To me the repairs seem to be re-enforcement of a part that will fail. Not only that, to me it appears that a couple of holes are re-located but I do not assert this - I sold my E36 a month ago can't remember, but I can check. Just looking at the pics it appears they've been improved for strength and moved in position slightly. If this is what is takes to make a E36 run upfront then I am glad I didn't pick the car for ITS. I like E36s, but, owning (ed, sold) one I feel they are classed below weight and from what it might appear here and on other threads "odd" things happen to make them run.

And no, I'm not out to "get" E36s since I don't race - yet, and besides, what could I do to "get" them? Nothing. What I am out to get is knowledge and learn how things are done in the world of SCCA. From what I've seen here and talk on other threads, the contraversy about the E36 makes it seem as if something out of the ordinary is going on and it isn't exactly a great example for the beginning racer.
Ron


[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited December 08, 2004).]

[lateapex911]

You're right as usual, Ron...NOT a good example...

Lots of stuff welded on that car that is a bit sketchy, to say the least.

Let's, just for the sake of arguement, run with the claim that they did it because the factory authorized it...

My knowledge of the situtation is not 100% complete, but isn't the M3 strengthend in the same manner? Isn't there a "kit" of pieces from the factory to do the "repair"?

To the AT guys...are those the peices that were supplied by the factory??

What say you??

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

[Ron Earp]

Jake, I sold my 98 M3 to a co-worker. So, I can look at it and see what the pieces look like and check. We (Ed does now) also have the complete factory repair manuals and Ed can check that as well. While not definite, I can report my findings back with little effort on my part since it involves walking down the hall and asking/looking.

Ron