IS300 in ITS?

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Marcus Miller@Sep 21 2005, 03:03 AM
No dog in the fight, though I can't believe we were trying to compare Dyno numbers on a Mustang versus Dynojet. That's asinine.
(oh... and I love John Norris' E36....)

[snapback]60771[/snapback]

And, this from what I can tell, is the crux of all the hollering. I point this out pages ago before the dyno plots were posted, but we've really not heard this addressed or anyone say "yeah, my bad".

IIRC one fellow said now way his car would make 210 rwhp, but it looks like his car is already there since the majority of people on the IT forum speak in Dynojet numbers while his numbers were from a Mustang dyno. And, his admittedly is not a 100% effort, therefore, it seems to suggest that yes, more power is possible and 220 rwhp (Dynojet) might could be possible.

Anyhow, looks like the matter is dead on that path. The ITAC isn't getting much feedback except from a couple of BMW people and one potential owner driver, so they will have to form a solution based on what they have.

Ron

[JeffYoung]

I agree with Scott, the BMW response is "human nature." However, I note that:

1. We ask for curb weight numbers from the BMW folks for the 325 and we get a lowball number that with some digging we find out is for a 318.

2. We ask for dyno plots and we get a Mustang dyno plot at 195 when common knowledge is that this equates to the 210 Dynojet that the ITAC has been excorciated for on this board.

Interesting. Goes a bit beyond defending the turf I think.

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 21 2005, 09:30 AM
I agree with Scott, the BMW response is "human nature." However, I note that:

1. We ask for curb weight numbers from the BMW folks for the 325 and we get a lowball number that with some digging we find out is for a 318.

The site I where I got this number said nothing about a 318, it explicitly stated 325. Last year I pulled several numbers from various sites that were under 3000 lbs. That post was quickly overlooked. Try googling (BMW 325 specifications or weight) for 15 minutes and see what you find (complements to Ron for finding a couple).

2. We ask for dyno plots and we get a Mustang dyno plot at 195 when common knowledge is that this equates to the 210 Dynojet that the ITAC has been excorciated for on this board.

While it might be common knowledge to the ITAC and other proponents of adjustments, there has been no hard proof provided on the disparity between the Mustang and Dynojet in this or any other thread. Just the usual hyperbole and conjecture repeated enough times. I'm not denying there is a difference, I just have not seen any hard evidence.

Interesting. Goes a bit beyond defending the turf I think.

[snapback]60797[/snapback]

Does not! :P

And one last thing, for all of you reading this that might be on the fence regarding competition adjustments, your car may be next and it’s no fun.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 21 2005, 02:08 PM
While it might be common knowledge to the ITAC and other proponents of adjustments, there has been no hard proof provided on the disparity between the Mustang and Dynojet in this or any other thread. Just the usual hyperbole and conjecture repeated enough times. I'm not denying there is a difference, I just have not seen any hard evidence.

Knowledge that members have picked up is not hard proof, I agree, but I'm not sure what you need. There have been many, many, many articles in Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords, European Car, Grass Roots Motorsports, Super Ford, Super Chevy, and lots of dyno plots on forums dealing with cars showing Mustang vs. Dynojet plots and the Mustang dynos read lower.

What do you need, a refereed journal? It doesn't exist, unfortunately, so the closest you can come to is published magazines which I and others have simply boiled down the facts that we know from dynoing and tuning cars for many years. I might have some comparison articles in back issues of magazines and if I can dig one out I'll scan it and post. Same car, same conditions, same day, comparing output of the two types.

Until then maybe this will help, from Mustang and read the question "Why do I get more power on an inertial dynometer (Which is what a dynojet is)". Mustang wouldn't have the question in their FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) if they didn't get it a lot.

http://www.mustangdyne.com/faq.htm

Ron

[gran racing]

The BMW boys don’t like having 150 lbs of ballast added to the car for various reasons. I can understand that and can’t imagine adding three 45 lb weight plates as well as the remaining 15 lbs. Although I would then finally get use of my gym weights. Yes, there are more creative and effective ways to add weight but that’s what popped into my head. On the other hand, the car IS too fast as cars are currently classed. It is similar to what Spec CRX / Integra (oops! I mean ITA) had become.

Just curious, why is the idea of using a Single Air Restrictor not receiving more attention? It has been mentioned a few times by members of the board here. Based on my initial research about how they work, it seems like it could be a viable option. Or as a minimum it should be looked into more. Almost all BMW owners (at least here) are saying that 215 whp is a pipe dream (w/o the current restrictor plate). Other non-BMW drivers feel that there are BMWs doing 215 (or whatever the magic number is). As a starting point and not using the real number it should be limited to, say the car was limited to 210 whp. BMW drivers say they can’t get those HP numbers anyway, so according to them it won’t do a single thing to hurt their performance. It sure beats adding a gym in the passenger foot well of the car. The existing restrictor plate would be taken off that BMW drivers feel hurts everyone even if they could only get 180 hp out of their engine. It avoids the fear of extra wear on the brakes, tires, scare of suspension or other parts failure, and other things that people are objecting to regarding the weight. Others will feel satisfied that all of those 215 HP BMWs will no longer exist and the class will have more equality.

BMW drivers need to face the facts. Something will be done to the BMW to slow it down or at least keep it in check. Go ahead and debate it all you want; it’s gonna happen. Here is YOUR chance to guide how it will be done. Take advantage of this opportunity. You’re lucky guys from the board are giving you this chance instead of just saying the car will have 150 lbs added to the car, and that’s that. If it is going to be done, at least choose how it should be done. AND you have a possible option that based on what you write, won’t even hurt you? Ummm, why is that such a tough choice? Of course there are things to discuss regarding the SIR…so why aren’t they being discussed? Fine, I’ll start it.

Would the SCCA hire an outside firm to get the SIR’s specs done right?
How much would it cost to have a firm do this?
How would the firm’s cost be paid for?
How much would it cost for a person to buy a SIR?
Is there room in the BMWs engine bay to fit a SIR without causing issues?
What methods would be implemented to police the sealed boxes?

[its66]

A mustang vs dynojet search turned up some interesting results.

http://www.theonlinegarage.com/forums/arch...php/t-3309.html

http://www.vwfixx.com/shows/dynoresults.html
(this one shows the results of back to back tests on different dynos)

and this, from Active Autowerke's website...

http://www.activeautowerke.com/dyno/dyno2.cfm

".... As a result of the loading capability, the dyno numbers from a mustang dyno will come out lower than the inertia (dynojet) dyno. Further information can be seen at www.mustangdyne.com "

I would have to assume that AA stating this publicly would be enough to consider that the app. 195 hp number would have been higher if the same test was done on a dynojet.

What the BMW owners feel is happening to them,is the same thing that everyone else felt when the BMW was classed. (except Dino )

Just because the ITAC members who frequent the board haven't told us what other vehicles they are watching, doesn't mean they don't have a few on the radar. They have to keep some of their ideas to themselves because, Unfortunately, WE take everything they say as "official comments of the ITAC". We are fortunate to have the ITAC guys here. I wish our paid congressmen were as open as these volunteers are.

[mlytle]

Originally posted by gran racing@Sep 21 2005, 02:47 PM
The BMW boys don’t like having 150 lbs of ballast added to the car for various reasons. I can understand that and can’t imagine adding three 45 lb weight plates as well as the remaining 15 lbs. Although I would then finally get use of my gym weights. Yes, there are more creative and effective ways to add weight but that’s what popped into my head. On the other hand, the car IS too fast as cars are currently classed. It is similar to what Spec CRX / Integra (oops! I mean ITA) had become.

Just curious, why is the idea of using a Single Air Restrictor not receiving more attention? It has been mentioned a few times by members of the board here. Based on my initial research about how they work, it seems like it could be a viable option. Or as a minimum it should be looked into more. Almost all BMW owners (at least here) are saying that 215 whp is a pipe dream (w/o the current restrictor plate). Other non-BMW drivers feel that there are BMWs doing 215 (or whatever the magic number is). As a starting point and not using the real number it should be limited to, say the car was limited to 210 whp. BMW drivers say they can’t get those HP numbers anyway, so according to them it won’t do a single thing to hurt their performance. It sure beats adding a gym in the passenger foot well of the car. The existing restrictor plate would be taken off that BMW drivers feel hurts everyone even if they could only get 180 hp out of their engine. It avoids the fear of extra wear on the brakes, tires, scare of suspension or other parts failure, and other things that people are objecting to regarding the weight. Others will feel satisfied that all of those 215 HP BMWs will no longer exist and the class will have more equality.

BMW drivers need to face the facts. Something will be done to the BMW to slow it down or at least keep it in check. Go ahead and debate it all you want; it’s gonna happen. Here is YOUR chance to guide how it will be done. Take advantage of this opportunity. You’re lucky guys from the board are giving you this chance instead of just saying the car will have 150 lbs added to the car, and that’s that. If it is going to be done, at least choose how it should be done. AND you have a possible option that based on what you write, won’t even hurt you? Ummm, why is that such a tough choice? Of course there are things to discuss regarding the SIR…so why aren’t they being discussed? Fine, I’ll start it.

Would the SCCA hire an outside firm to get the SIR’s specs done right?
How much would it cost to have a firm do this?
How would the firm’s cost be paid for?
How much would it cost for a person to buy a SIR?
Is there room in the BMWs engine bay to fit a SIR without causing issues?
What methods would be implemented to police the sealed boxes?

[snapback]60804[/snapback]

hello? beuller?

i have said this a few times...as a bmw guy. if the class is so concerned about equity, bring on sir's! for EVERYONE. don't limit this to bmw's. if they do what they are supposed to, make everyone run them and eliminate worrying about the super developed or illegal engine making too much power.

adding weight sucks. on so many levels that are not even performance related. i already have weight bolted to the sheet metal in the passenger footwell. i don't want to bolt another 150-300lbs there. something about that much weight ripping out the metal it is attached to. i don't want the added wear and tear maint costs. i don't want to tow another 300lbs around in my trailer (anyone notice gas costs nowadays?). yeah i know...blah blah blah.

gran racings questions are right on.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by its66@Sep 21 2005, 12:23 PM
".... As a result of the loading capability, the dyno numbers from a mustang dyno will come out lower than the inertia (dynojet) dyno....

[snapback]60811[/snapback]

Same goes for the DynaPack (my preference). Anything that can load the engine/drivetrain and control the rate of acceleration (Mustang, DynaPack) is going to show more accurate and more repeatable numbers. Anything that measures the rate of acceleration and infers the horsepower/torque numbers (e.g., DynoJet) is going to be relatively innacurate and unrepeatable (for example, simply changing the wheels to lighter ones will increase the rate of acceleration thus the reported hp/tq numbers).

As an aside, I prefer the DynaPack over the Mustang. Whereas the Mustang is a rolling dyno (you drive onto it and lash the car down), the DynaPack attaches directly to the wheel hubs, eliminating any issues with slippage from the tires. It's an excellent tuning tool; you can set the dyno to hold at a specific RPM and tune the engine while watching the output (torque, air/fuel, temperatures, pressures, etc). Tune it to some key RPM values and you can extrapolate pretty well through the remainder of the range. With a DynoJet it's make a change, test it, make a change, test it, make a change, blah, blah, blah.

We have a saying in the shop: "Are those numbers horsepowers or DynoJets?" - GA

[gran racing]

i have said this a few times...as a bmw guy.

My bad; came very late to this game and tried reading as much as I could.

[lateapex911]

Not really your bad, Dave...

he wants the SIR on every car in the class...MUCH different than just one car.

Which raises new questions. (just to think this through a bit...)

What level should we limit to?

Since an independent consultant is probably required to do the exact science, we are now looking at a financial cost that is multilied by the number of cars on the ITCS ITS classification list. (I've got things to do now, so I'm not looking that number up, LOL)

Thats ALOT of cars, and means the bill would be multiplied by ALOT.

And would that be the most equitable way to meet the goal?
Does the entire class have to expend the time and financial resources due to one overdog?
Why?

[mlytle]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 21 2005, 04:59 PM
Does the entire class have to expend the time and financial resources due to one overdog?
Why?

[snapback]60817[/snapback]

ya missed the reason for "all cars"...has nothing to do with one car..

"if they do what they are supposed to, make everyone run them and eliminate worrying about the super developed or illegal engine making too much power"

it eliminates all the "he's running a cheater cam" or whatever. doesn't matter what is done inside the engine right? only so much air gets in... no more advantage to porting rotaries, hot cams, compression bumps, etc.

[SPiFF]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 21 2005, 03:19 AM
What the final outcome of that would be would that ITA would look like ITS of old, ITB like ITA of old, etc...

Is this really that scary of an idea? Cars do keep getting faster. I would like to someday understand what it is in the phylosophy of IT that a car has to stay in the same class (and be competitive) for decades? S and A have both gotten faster in recent years causing some cars to be moved down to A and B. Seemed to worked out pretty good.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by SPiFF@Sep 21 2005, 10:49 PM
Is this really that scary of an idea? Cars do keep getting faster. I would like to someday understand what it is in the phylosophy of IT that a car has to stay in the same class (and be competitive) for decades? S and A have both gotten faster in recent years causing some cars to be moved down to A and B. Seemed to worked out pretty good.

[snapback]60855[/snapback]

Yah, it is a scary thought... Well, not so much scary and just plain silly...

Dude, think about it for a minute... WHAT the hell is the point in doing this, if all the ITS cars end up in A, and all the A cars in B, etc... If cars keep getting that much faster, then create a class above S and put them there...

Why would you choose a solution that has a HUGE impact to ALL of IT, when such a simply solution is available??? Makes no sense at all... ESPECIALLY when ITC is seeing some excitement, and there may be more on the way...

There is simply no reason to completely shake up the apple cart, when you can make a few tweaks and have everything you've wanted...

[Catch22]

Originally posted by SPiFF@Sep 21 2005, 10:49 PM
Is this really that scary of an idea? Cars do keep getting faster. I would like to someday understand what it is in the phylosophy of IT that a car has to stay in the same class (and be competitive) for decades? S and A have both gotten faster in recent years causing some cars to be moved down to A and B. Seemed to worked out pretty good.

[snapback]60855[/snapback]

Because this is amatuer club racing. Not pro racing. Not European touring car racing. Not Super All Japan Happy GT (or whatever the hell they call it).
MANY people in this club buy one car and drive it for years. Or they come to know one chassis, have lots of parts and spares, and thus stick with that chassis. Sometimes this is a choice, sometimes its all someone can afford to do. Its amatuer racing, one shouldn't be forced to constantly be building the flavor of the year to be competitive. If I could afford to do that, I'd be running Grand Am or World Challenge in the first place.

Again... Club Racing. For trophies.

That said, the club can't reasonably try to keep every chassis competitive forever, and I think most people realize that.

But... If you just start cascading cars down the classes every 5 years or so due to "progress"... What happens at the end of that cascade?
I can tell you, as a guy thats spent a couple of years developing an ITC car to try to win championships, the prospect of a bunch of GTIs and Volvos suddenly appearing in my class doesn't sit very well. All of the current ITC cars would suddenly be completely non-competitive. 5 to 7 more years down the road the Volvos and GTIs start to get obsoleted...
Thats fine in Pro Racing, but not in IT. Mass extinction of groups of cars should be avoided like the plague.

When it comes to the progress of bigger and faster cars, you have 3 reasonable choices...
1. Put them in ITS with lots and lots of ballast and restrictors
2. Add a class above ITS
3. Status Quo. Ignore the whole thing

I think I'd pick number 2.

[robits325is]

So in summary, after all of the proposed changes are in place, will a BMW driver be forced to have a 10/10th (big$$) effort to compete with a 8/10th competitor? It may not have been the intent but it will certainly be the result.

What will happen when a newly classified car is faster than the E-36?

[its66]

Rob,
I hope that doesn't happen. It should take a 10/10th BMW to run with an equally driven 10/10th's RX7, and vice versa. This originally started an underestimation of performance potential when the e36 was orignally classed. What we are going through now is the process of fixing this mistake. IF the end result is that a cobbled together RX7 with a junkyard engine and some brand X shocks can run with a motec equipped, full on e36, then ITAC, comp board etc. has failed again. I think Andy and the guys are trying very hard to make sure this doesn't happen.

And, if the process works properly, I doubt anything will be classed in ITS that is faster than the current e36's. IF so, hopefully there will be individuals on the ITAC who realize the mistake and have the sack to stand up, say "we screwed this one up, let us try to fix it." Perhaps all is not lost....without the 300+posts in this thread, someone might have snuck the IS300 in to ITS at 2500 lbs. Then, the Mazda camp and the BMW guys would have to stand together to scream about it.

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 22 2005, 12:21 AM
Because this is amatuer club racing. Not pro racing. Not European touring car racing. Not Super All Japan Happy GT (or whatever the hell they call it).
MANY people in this club buy one car and drive it for years. Or they come to know one chassis, have lots of parts and spares, and thus stick with that chassis. Sometimes this is a choice, sometimes its all someone can afford to do. Its amatuer racing, one shouldn't be forced to constantly be building the flavor of the year to be competitive. If I could afford to do that, I'd be running Grand Am or World Challenge in the first place.

Again... Club Racing. For trophies.

That said, the club can't reasonably try to keep every chassis competitive forever, and I think most people realize that.

But... If you just start cascading cars down the classes every 5 years or so due to "progress"... What happens at the end of that cascade?
I can tell you, as a guy thats spent a couple of years developing an ITC car to try to win championships, the prospect of a bunch of GTIs and Volvos suddenly appearing in my class doesn't sit very well. All of the current ITC cars would suddenly be completely non-competitive. 5 to 7 more years down the road the Volvos and GTIs start to get obsoleted...
Thats fine in Pro Racing, but not in IT. Mass extinction of groups of cars should be avoided like the plague.

When it comes to the progress of bigger and faster cars, you have 3 reasonable choices...
1. Put them in ITS with lots and lots of ballast and restrictors
2. Add a class above ITS
3. Status Quo. Ignore the whole thing

I think I'd pick number 2.

[snapback]60862[/snapback]

i'd vote for 2 also. we may end up with too many classes that way though unless there is a process for "thinning the herd". there are a ton of newer cars that could be classified in it, but there is no class above its. adding new classes can be a problem for regions that already run at max track capacity like the marrs events.

a/ drop the slowest class when a new class comes in.
b/ stop making performance adjustments to newer cars to accomodate the lack of ability of older cars that race in it, and are eligible for vintage racing. over time the perf standard for each class will rise slightly. vintage cars will be made obsolete in it. harsh reality that technology moves on.
c/ just make cars ineligible for it if they are more than 25yrs old.

yes, i realize that means my 93 bmw only has about 13yrs of racing life left. oh well, it will probably fold in half from all the extra weight before then anyway..

marshall
ducking for cover... i know we can easily get this thread to 20 pages with a few more controvesial ideas....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by robits325is@Sep 21 2005, 10:35 PM
So in summary, after all of the proposed changes are in place, will a BMW driver be forced to have a 10/10th (big$$) effort to compete with a 8/10th competitor? It may not have been the intent but it will certainly be the result.

Based on what? It amuses me that the BMW guys were so hell-bent against our power numbers because we had "no proof" yet almost all of you guys are 100% sure that the car is a dog at the target power to weight of the class. :angry:

What will happen when a newly classified car is faster than the E-36?

[snapback]60868[/snapback]

2 scenarios can play out:

1. If the E36 is still head and shoulders above the rest of the class and something (not sure what COULD be faster we are even considering) comes in that proves faster, BOTH cars should get reined in.

2. If the E36 is at the top with the RX-7, 240Z, Integra, etc...and someting comes in and blows them all away due to ITAC error, we admit the mistake and bring it back to where it should be.

Bonus: I do think there needs to be a class above ITS. Cars with bigger power can run at 'racing' weights with a new performance target. This would be something that letters to the CRB with proposed cars and "if you create it, I will build it" should come in.

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 21 2005, 10:55 PM
i'd vote for 2 also. we may end up with too many classes that way though unless there is a process for "thinning the herd". there are a ton of newer cars that could be classified in it, but there is no class above its. adding new classes can be a problem for regions that already run at max track capacity like the marrs events.

a/ drop the slowest class when a new class comes in.
b/ stop making performance adjustments to newer cars to accomodate the lack of ability of older cars that race in it, and are eligible for vintage racing. over time the perf standard for each class will rise slightly. vintage cars will be made obsolete in it. harsh reality that technology moves on.
c/ just make cars ineligible for it if they are more than 25yrs old.

yes, i realize that means my 93 bmw only has about 13yrs of racing life left. oh well, it will probably fold in half from all the extra weight before then anyway..

marshall
ducking for cover... i know we can easily get this thread to 20 pages with a few more controvesial ideas....

[snapback]60871[/snapback]

Marshall,

You aren't the first one to suggest this...it has merit to some...

AB

[Matt Rowe]

Looking at putting in a cutoff date for car eligibility I looked at the recent results from the MARRS labor day event. Based on the results adding a cutoff date would result in the following percent reduction in the field.

Cutoff 30 25 20 15
ITS 12% 18% 18% 53%
ITA 7% 20% 47% 87%
ITB 53% 65% 76% 100%
ITC 8% 69% 85% 100%

So you can see that even a 25 year cutoff immediately decimates the ITB and ITC fields. ITA would be cut in roughly half in five years. Overall it looks like a cutoff date would significantly including several top ten cars in each ITB and ITC with only a 25 year cutoff.

I don't think an arbitrary year cutoff makes any more sense than using stock horsepower and curb weights to class cars. This is only one data point but I hope the ITAC, CRB does a lot of research before they put o lot of cars out to pasture.