IS300 in ITS?

[dj10]

I'm wondering why anyone hasn't mentioned the fast RX7's? Chris Ludwig's for 1 that I personally know. He's making incredible power, as much or more than the bmw's I've seen. Does this mean he is cheating or does he have the 10/ 10's development everyone is talking about? Seems everyone is jumping on the BMW's and forgeting about the other really fast makes.
Chris I only use you as an example because I know you and you have the fastest rx7 i've run into.
Just to keep things clear. My personal belief is Chris is not cheating, I've raced against him and met him. I think he is a class individual and would race him any time any where. It would really disappointment me if he was.
How about adding weight to the winners like pro does? The more you win the more weight you have the carry.
dj

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 22 2005, 12:00 PM
BTW, I'm still waiting to hear how the restrictor plate impacted your lap times. Did you set that Sebring record before or after putting in the restrictor plate?

[snapback]60939[/snapback]

The record was set prior to the restrictor plate.

I have not been close the record because the car didn't run well the one time it has been dry and the other times we have run on the short course it has been either wet or pouring.

Several RX7's have been all over the record in qualifying.

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Sep 22 2005, 10:35 AM
I understand what Bruce is saying.

In my case, it's not that I don't have a 10/10th car, it's just that I didn't increase the compression 1/2 point or go to 40-thou-over pistons yet...so stop trying to accuse me of not doing a 100% (10/10 = 1.00 = 100%) effort. While we're at it, let's talk about getting some weight off my car; it's obviously uncompetitive this way. - GA

[snapback]60924[/snapback]

Not the same argument, the jury is still out on what the MOTEC brings to the table for an IT car.

Half point increase and .040 over motor have had definitive measurable HP increases since the invention of the internal combustion engine.

Nice try though!

[Doc Bro]

If it were me I don't think I'd worry all that much about the weight. I drive an ITA Z3 which at 2675 and 137hp in my opinion is heavy. (I think that weight is based partly on how the E36 325 is classed in ITS.) And nobody has done anything with the m44 motor, which certainly doesn't have 325 potential. What I did and will do again is spend the money on Bondurant and not some fancy engine BS or freak of the weak gizmo to bolt on. I believe whole heartedly that the car is better than the driver. Until I feel that that is no longer true I will spend my money on DRIVER development. BMW has like what ...2 kabillion PhD's designing these things. I'm not so arrogant as to think that I can do soo much better than they did. (Even though I am a dentist ). I've tried to develop the car (translation: understand it better) and drive it more smoothly. I think part of what we are missing in this thread is the "human component". The BMW 325 is still a HELL of a car even if it got fat over the winter. (That is how my partiality lies with BMW.) We just gotta take our licks for driving a good marque.

PS I used to be a nationally sponsored mountain biker, racing all over the country...the first thing cyclists would do when they lost was blame the equipment.

Sorry if I offended any of my BMW bretheren but I'm just calling it as I see it!!

Rob Breault
NER #36 BMW Z3

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dj10@Sep 22 2005, 12:27 PM
I'm wondering why anyone hasn't mentioned the fast RX7's? Chris Ludwig's for 1 that I personally know. He's making incredible power, as much or more than the bmw's I've seen. Does this mean he is cheating or does he have the 10/ 10's development everyone is talking about? Seems everyone is jumping on the BMW's and forgeting about the other really fast makes.
Chris I only use you as an example because I know you and you have the fastest rx7 i've run into.
Just to keep things clear. My personal belief is Chris is not cheating, I've raced against him and met him. I think he is a class individual and would race him any time any where. It would really disappointment me if he was.
How about adding weight to the winners like pro does? The more you win the more weight you have the carry.
dj

[snapback]60944[/snapback]

Simple. Because when you compare the best BMW's to the best RX-7's (or 240Z's or Integra's, etc.) they don't equate. I don't know about Chris' situation but it may be similar to here in the Northeast. A hoard of RX-7's, a 300ZX, some 240's - and one lone E36 that has a stock motor, is 150lbs overweight and is driven by a talented 20-something. That E36 often runs on the poduim in 20+ car classes. The Championship E36 and it's team car are not running this year (Rob Driscoll) due to extended build time on new E46 323's.

So, you have to look outside your own backyard to understand the scope of the big picture. 944's and 240Z's rule in the PacNW...does that mean we should give them weight? No. We need to keep a competitive balance in all the classes.

AB

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Sep 22 2005, 05:05 PM
If it were me I don't think I'd worry all that much about the weight. I drive an ITA Z3 which at 2675 and 137hp in my opinion is heavy. (I think that weight is based partly on how the E36 325 is classed in ITS.)

[snapback]60950[/snapback]

BMW "potential" definately comes into play, but not as much as you might think...

I ran your numbers though the process again, and you are classified very nicely for ITA...

It may not look that way today, but thing might look a little different next season...

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 22 2005, 05:30 PM
BMW "potential" definately comes into play, but not as much as you might think...

I ran your numbers though the process again, and you are classified very nicely for ITA...

It may not look that way today, but thing might look a little different next season...

[snapback]60957[/snapback]

Yeah I agree. I noticed 1-1.5 sec improvement in my NHIS lap times but just changing up somethings behind the wheel. ( the...steering wheel!!) My point was more about the Z3 relative to the integras not the Z3 to the process. I also know that there are good, honest plans in the works to keep the racing close and competitive. I truly believe that most of the people in this sport are gentlemen and don't have overriding personal agendas. From what it sounds like to me from the vets there has never been a better time to race in the SCCA.
Rob

[dj10]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 22 2005, 05:18 PM
Simple. Because when you compare the best BMW's to the best RX-7's (or 240Z's or Integra's, etc.) they don't equate. I don't know about Chris' situation but it may be similar to here in the Northeast. A hoard of RX-7's, a 300ZX, some 240's - and one lone E36 that has a stock motor, is 150lbs overweight and is driven by a talented 20-something. That E36 often runs on the poduim in 20+ car classes. The Championship E36 and it's team car are not running this year (Rob Driscoll) due to extended build time on new E46 323's.

So, you have to look outside your own backyard to understand the scope of the big picture. 944's and 240Z's rule in the PacNW...does that mean we should give them weight? No. We need to keep a competitive balance in all the classes.

AB

[snapback]60952[/snapback]

AB
This was just a suggestion to try and keep the fields equal. This was not meant to keep a cheater equal. I've seen 1st hand the engine of a NE BMW and I hope it was running in the BMW club racing, not the SCCA because of the retarted valve timing, racing valve springs and more. Limit the BMW's to .020 over bore, .040 is illegal anyway.
dj

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by dj10@Sep 22 2005, 12:27 PM
I'm wondering why anyone hasn't mentioned the fast RX7's? Chris Ludwig's for 1 that I personally know. He's making incredible power, as much or more than the bmw's I've seen.

How do you know what power he's making?? Have you seen his dyno sheets? Again, we are trying to look at things from an mechanical and physical angle to the greatest degree possible, with observation of known qualtities as supporting or conflicting evidence. Of course it's a puzzle, and the more peices we can find and fit, the clearer the picture becomes.

How about adding weight to the winners like pro does? The more you win the more weight you have the carry.
dj

[snapback]60944[/snapback]

This is a great idea for a limited series, but would be very tough to employ in a larger open series such as we run....nationwide.

Say i race in Missouri, and I'm pretty good. Not many ITA cars there....maybe 5 a race, and I win most often, as my competetors are not that serious. But when I go to the big events, I get creamed because I weigh 150 pounds more! And of course the reverse is true.

Awards weight makes things interesting in Speed World Challenge, but it's not appropriate for a Nationwide series.

[lateapex911]

So Bruce you are saying your car is a 10/10ths effort...100%...EXCEPT the Motec, which you think doesn't add to the performance?

[Bill Miller]

I gotta admit Bruce, that's pretty funny. Several pages back, you admit that MOTEC and the 'other gizmos' are probably worth 10 hp. Yet now, when someone challenges your contention that you've got a 10/10ths program, you come back w/ some crap about not knowing if MOTEC brings anything to the table in an IT car. If that were really the case, I doubt we'd see people throwing thousands of dollars at it. Go to the ARRC this year, and tell me how many of the top 5 E36 cars have a MOTEC (or similar) system.

As far as the lap times go, is Sebring the only track you race at? I was wondering about pre/post restrictor times in general.

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 22 2005, 04:50 PM
So Bruce you are saying your car is a 10/10ths effort...100%...EXCEPT the Motec, which you think doesn't add to the performance?

[snapback]60986[/snapback]

Tell me the difference between MOTEC and a custom chip?

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 22 2005, 05:23 PM
I gotta admit Bruce, that's pretty funny. Several pages back, you admit that MOTEC and the 'other gizmos' are probably worth 10 hp. Yet now, when someone challenges your contention that you've got a 10/10ths program, you come back w/ some crap about not knowing if MOTEC brings anything to the table in an IT car. If that were really the case, I doubt we'd see people throwing thousands of dollars at it. Go to the ARRC this year, and tell me how many of the top 5 E36 cars have a MOTEC (or similar) system.

As far as the lap times go, is Sebring the only track you race at? I was wondering about pre/post restrictor times in general.

[snapback]60993[/snapback]

Glad I could make you laugh.

I've changed my mind on MOTEC.

Why do people spend thousands of dollars on paint jobs for their race cars? If you have the money and are obsessed enough, it's no big deal, it's money well spent.

The other tracks I had only run in my E30, never the E36 so there was no baseline. The E36 had been somewhat unreliable so I didn't ventured too far. Sebring is close to where I keep the car.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 22 2005, 05:45 PM
Tell me the difference between MOTEC and a custom chip?

[snapback]60998[/snapback]

So, am I to infer your car has a custom chip which you feel provides the same power curve as a motec solution?

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Sep 22 2005, 04:57 AM
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 0% 0% 0% 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.

[snapback]60880[/snapback]

so what does this tell you about itb and itc? answer - it is already effectively vintage racing. let them race there and make a new class above its for the even newer cars...
and ita and its? new cars go here.

i don't know if i fully support this concept of a cut off, but it is an option for IT

the datq you put out must be off a bit. there were a couple datsun z's running in its. they are a bit more than 15yrs old.

[Bildon]

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 22 2005, 05:45 PM
Tell me the difference between MOTEC and a custom chip?

[snapback]60998[/snapback]

h34r:
Well if you are going to have a chip burned for every track, every weather condition at each track, and every engine, final drive, etc.... then there are no big differences.

A MoTeC is not some magical device that will make horsepower from hidden laws of physics that are unavailable to chip tuners. It's a tool that makes tuning as easy as turning the screws on a carb.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 22 2005, 07:07 PM
so what does this tell you about itb and itc? answer - it is already effectively vintage racing. let them race there and make a new class above its for the even newer cars...
and ita and its? new cars go here.

i don't know if i fully support this concept of a cut off, but it is an option for IT

the datq you put out must be off a bit. there were a couple datsun z's running in its. they are a bit more than 15yrs old.

[snapback]61007[/snapback]

What it tells me about ITB and ITC is that despite newer cars being available in that class, there are still several popular AND competitive cars. The typical definition of vintage I see wouldn't accept many of these cars as they are currently prepared so essentially you would have to create "vintage" classes to put them in. It makes more sense to create new classes for new cars.

Yep, there was an error in the ITS numbers, I made the changes to the previous post. But essnetially it ends up being


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

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 22 2005, 07:07 PM
so what does this tell you about itb and itc? answer - it is already effectively vintage racing. let them race there and make a new class above its for the even newer cars...

[snapback]61007[/snapback]

[begin edit] On edit, (and reading Matt's post above seems to confirm he read it the same way,) I reread your comment, and the phrase "let them race there" I took to mean, "Let them race in vintage".....and as we have no vintage......I responded thusly..

If I misread that, then sorry, I misunderstood. [end edit]


I'm not sure I support telling the ITB and ITC guys to go away. That's what you'd be doing, as SCCA has no vintage racing category (other than prod, hee hee) that I am aware of...

And by excluding them you are essentially telling them to stop racing, as -

1- Many vintage sanctioning bodies do not allow any car in. Some must meet their requirements for make and model and year produced, and others require a race history in a pro series and so on. Whatever the case, the options are minimal.

2- most vintage sanctioning bodies do not allow racing as we know it. Most observe the 13/13 rule and frown upon the close racing that is considered the norm in the SCCA.

I see that type of disenfranchising as very dangerous.

Parts supplies, and the thinning of the herd will move the population to other classes, hopefully IN the club, in a natural progression.

When there is enough demand, new classes will be created.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Sep 22 2005, 09:46 PM
Yep, there was an error in the ITS numbers, I made the changes to the previous post. But essnetially it ends up being


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

[snapback]61014[/snapback]

I think you have a slight error in the ITC numbers....

100% at 15 a 15 yr cutoff can't be right... GR Jones will be racing his all conquering new Beetle alone, but it's less than 15 years, right??
(Has anyone seen one yet?)

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 22 2005, 10:10 PM
I think you have a slight error in the ITC numbers....

100% at 15 a 15 yr cutoff can't be right... GR Jones will be racing his all conquering new Beetle alone, but it's less than 15 years, right??
(Has anyone seen one yet?)

[snapback]61018[/snapback]

Nope, I checked and according to race results from the MARRS Labor Day Sunday race the youngest cars at that race were '90 so no eligible cars if a 15 year cutoff was put in place as of next year.

After reading your edit above and re-reading the original comment, I may be misinterpreting mylytle's comment as well. I guess I'll have to wait and see if he starts calling me names for making the error. (Just a little joke)