IS300 in ITS?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by DoubleD+Sep 18 2005, 03:22 PM-->

I will say this unequivocally: Secret numbers witnessed by secret ITAC members one time on one car on one dyno on one day is not my idea of a firm basis upon which to write, or in this casse rewrite, rules.

-DD

[snapback]60500[/snapback]

[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@ Sep 17 2005
That&#39;s easy... we use all of them we can get our hands on... and, we&#39;ll compare that to estimates... and, we&#39;ll come here and ask you guys... and we&#39;ll talk to any experts we may have available... and we&#39;ll look at other cars with similiar drivetrains... and ....

We gather all the information we can get, then we make the best decision we can based on that data...

I give up....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 18 2005, 10:22 AM
I will say this unequivocally: Secret numbers witnessed by secret ITAC members one time on one car on one dyno on one day is not my idea of a firm basis upon which to write, or in this casse rewrite, rules.

-DD

[snapback]60500[/snapback]

Me either. If you read the posts and think that is what is happening, then this is a hopeless debate.

BTW: I just got a quote of $9000 for a 100% build on a ITA Miata motor with full engine management. Costs are getting CRAZY.

Nobody wants the BMW to be a dog. What we want is for it to be a fair fight week in and week out at the track. What proof do you have that 3200 would send the car to the back of the pack?

BOTTOM LINE? The IS300 is TOO MUCH for ITS.

The BMW guys and the rest of IT just won&#39;t come to terms on this one...

AB

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 18 2005, 10:57 AM
.

I&#39;m not saying that the car isn&#39;t an overdog in the class. I&#39;m saying that adding hundreds of pounds to the car (and someone has mentioned 3200lbs!) will make it a complete dog. I can see that is exactly what some folks want though.

[snapback]60497[/snapback]

Well, congratulations on being the first of the E36 guys to not ignore the overdog status....not that you said it IS an overdog, LOL....

But.....the second half of you statement requires clarification. Specifically, WHO wants the car to be a complete dog???

You need to respond with a statement that either includes the ITAC posters here, (Darin, Andy and myself) or excludes us, at the least, or better yet provide the quote that caused you to come to that conclusion..

I have read this thread and though it&#39;s long, I remember nobody.....ITAC or not, expressing ANY comment that they want the car to be a "complete dog".

Don&#39;t pull the old "Well if you want it to run at 3200 pounds it will be a dog, so therefore, you want it to be a dog" logic trick, because it has been explained over and over again how the process works and some of the options available. The mere fact that the guys on the ITAC are even spending the time debating and posting here is a good indication of the desire to discuss and understand...


But, except for you David, all I have gotten from the E36 camp is denial and spin.

There IS a problem, and it NEEDs to be addressed. To the E36 guys, you&#39;ve been given a chance to be a part of the process, but you&#39;re not helping your case by standing by in denial.

All my previous comments that I thought were constructive have gone totally ignored, but like Jeff, I willl be press on and try again.

To the E36 guys, name a weight that you think will result in fair racing. ANY weight....BUT...back it up with the math. Show us WHY you chose that weight. You&#39;ve been given lots of background info...lets talk turkey here.

Or........suggest another option. Provide the concrete reasons for that approach.

[Knestis]

As ex-Captain of the SCCA black helicopter spotters squad, I have to state - as clearly as possible - that I have NEVER seen more transparency, repeatability, or apparent equity in treatment of different makes/models as we are currently seeing in the ITAC&#39;s efforts.

Second - I&#39;m pretty appalled at the relutctance of folks who appear to have a vested interest in the e36 325 to even CONSIDER the sporting implications of the situation. People who finish up front in cars that they admit aren&#39;t built to the letter of the rules, complaining that all of their efforts are being undermined. People playing the safety card to argue against making their cars slower. I&#39;m really left feeling like there&#39;s a lot of feelings of entitlement out there.

What kind of a freak am I, that when the outclassed-in-ITA Hondas got moved to B, I thought it was a GOOD thing? More people to race with, more options from which potential entrants might choose...

K

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Knestis@Sep 18 2005, 03:38 PM
As ex-Captain of the SCCA black helicopter spotters squad, I have to state - as clearly as possible - that I have NEVER seen more transparency, repeatability, or apparent equity in treatment of different makes/models as we are currently seeing in the ITAC&#39;s efforts.

Second - I&#39;m pretty appalled at the relutctance of folks who appear to have a vested interest in the e36 325 to even CONSIDER the sporting implications of the situation. People who finish up front in cars that they admit aren&#39;t built to the letter of the rules, complaining that all of their efforts are being undermined. People playing the safety card to argue against making their cars slower. I&#39;m really left feeling like there&#39;s a lot of feelings of entitlement out there.

What kind of a freak am I, that when the outclassed-in-ITA Hondas got moved to B, I thought it was a GOOD thing? More people to race with, more options from which potential entrants might choose...

K

[snapback]60504[/snapback]

To the first paragraph, thanks. I am sure the rest of the ITAC would agree that if you see progess, then we are on the right path...

As to the second paragraph, BINGO! I too am amazed at the complete head in the sand approach...esp when the offer has been made to listen to suggestions from the E36 camp.

On the third paragraph, you are not a freak at all, just a gentleman racer.....

(I can understand trying to retain hard fought turf, but the numbers show the turf should not have needed much fighting to get, and besides, nobody is ripping it away...)

[mlytle]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 18 2005, 05:29 PM

But, except for you David, all I have gotten from the E36 camp is denial and spin.

There IS a problem, and it NEEDs to be addressed. To the E36 guys, you&#39;ve been given a chance to be a part of the process, but you&#39;re not helping your case by standing by in denial.

All my previous comments that I thought were constructive have gone totally ignored, but like Jeff, I willl be press on and try again.

[snapback]60503[/snapback]

gotta love selective, filtered hearing. sheesh. any point an e36 person makes on this board is immediately discarded.

some denial? of course! all we see are bs hp numbers flying around and being used to justify a higher weight. i see claims that all factors are considered in classifying cars, but then in the same para it says. hp/weight targets are used to determine weight, no other factors. wtf??? the term garbage in, garbage out applies here.

if i knew it would actually be used (and not tossed out like the rest of reality) i would fax in my dyno sheets. engine built by one of the top bmw engine builders in the country as a top of the line its engine. engine personnally tuned on a dyno with and without restrictor by the same person. rwhp is south of 195. as double d has said, discussions in the bmw community pretty much agree that rwhp numbers that are being claimed by the itac are not possible without hot camshafts, bigger injectors, etc.

and the bmw&#39;s that were running that race with the integra at summit? NOT slow. one of the cars is the same one that set the track record before the restrictors were added. you just assume the integra may have been cheating? the owner driver is a very sharp guy who wouldn&#39;t do that. we have a pretty tight group running its in marrs...across all types of cars.

and the track record at watkins glenn was held by a pre-restrictor bmw that was very fast with a great driver. that record was eclipsed handily by an rx7 this summer. the ex-record holder quit its when the restrictor plates came out. he has since turned his car into a bmw cr prepared rule car. what that means is he added hot cams, bigger injectors, 17in wheels, bigger brakes, splitter and wing. only then was he able to run laps faster than the its rx7 did this year. hmmmm.

my suggested solution? if you don&#39;t like us that much just make another it class and dump us in it. i will happily go elsewhere at this point. every rule/restrictor/weight change costs $,$$$ to whatever car is effected, bmw or not. maybe changing every 3-5 years is reasonable with changing car technology, but changing the rules of the game for the same car multiple years in a row is UNACCEPTABLE. feel like the restrictor didn&#39;t reduce the hp enough? how can you tell after just one season, especially if the itac ignores actual race results? leave it alone for a few years. change a few other cars this year. see what happens. or just move us somewhere else. dicing it up with 240z&#39;s, acura&#39;s and mazda&#39;s is fun, but there are more than enough bmw&#39;s around to have fun by ourselves.

alternative to moving us? the sir concept is interesting alternative to the SAFETY (that was specificaly for you K) and cost implications of more weight. anybody know a good source of info on how it works? if they work, why not specify one for every car in its? that way nobody could cheat above a certain hp spec&#39;d for thier car...it would certainly cap engine development costs...

marshall

[robits325is]

..

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 18 2005, 04:37 PM
i see claims that all factors are considered in classifying cars, but then in the same para it says. hp/weight targets are used to determine weight, no other factors. wtf??? the term garbage in, garbage out applies here.

can you hit the "quote" button on the referrenced paragraph and show it? I don&#39;t think I wrote such a thing, but would appreciate the chance to clear it up if I did. I don&#39;t think either of the other guys did, but there have been a lot of posts here...

........ rwhp is south of 195. as double d has said, discussions in the bmw community pretty much agree that rwhp numbers that are being claimed by the itac are not possible without hot camshafts, bigger injectors, etc.

OK, another data point, this one <195 whp.

my suggested solution? if you don&#39;t like us that much just make another it class and dump us in it. i will happily go elsewhere at this point. every rule/restrictor/weight change costs $,$$$ to whatever car is effected, bmw or not. maybe changing every 3-5 years is reasonable with changing car technology, but changing the rules of the game for the same car multiple years in a row is UNACCEPTABLE. feel like the restrictor didn&#39;t reduce the hp enough? how can you tell after just one season, especially if the itac ignores actual race results? leave it alone for a few years. change a few other cars this year. see what happens. or just move us somewhere else. dicing it up with 240z&#39;s, acura&#39;s and mazda&#39;s is fun, but there are more than enough bmw&#39;s around to have fun by ourselves.

alternative to moving us? the sir concept is interesting alternative to the SAFETY (that was specificaly for you K) and cost implications of more weight. anybody know a good source of info on how it works? if they work, why not specify one for every car in its? that way nobody could cheat above a certain hp spec&#39;d for thier car...it would certainly cap engine development costs...

marshall

[snapback]60506[/snapback]

NOW we&#39;re getting somewhere....

Trust me, "Liking" you (all) has NOTHING to do with it. Geting the classes organized has EVERYTHING to do with it.

If you like dicing with other cars, then thats the goal of the ITAC....we&#39;re just trying to do it in the best way possible, with the least disturbance to the E36 guys, as well as the rest of the class. For as little cost as possible. We are TRYING to look at the big picture.

So, a question then, what number do you think is the ultimate potential whp for the best configuration of an E36?

[mlytle]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 18 2005, 09:47 PM


So, a question then, what number do you think is the ultimate potential whp for the best configuration of an E36?

[snapback]60509[/snapback]

on what dyno? as in, what dyno is producing the numbers that the "benchmark cars" are being classed at? unless the equipment and conditions are the same, picking numbers is useless. i guess that may be the beauty of putting sir&#39;s on ALL cars. if they truly act as described in several posts, then we have a known limit on at least one end of the equation.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 18 2005, 04:37 PM
gotta love selective, filtered hearing. sheesh. any point an e36 person makes on this board is immediately discarded.

some denial? of course! all we see are bs hp numbers flying around and being used to justify a higher weight. i see claims that all factors are considered in classifying cars, but then in the same para it says. hp/weight targets are used to determine weight, no other factors. wtf??? the term garbage in, garbage out applies here.

if i knew it would actually be used (and not tossed out like the rest of reality) i would fax in my dyno sheets. engine built by one of the top bmw engine builders in the country as a top of the line its engine. engine personnally tuned on a dyno with and without restrictor by the same person. rwhp is south of 195. as double d has said, discussions in the bmw community pretty much agree that rwhp numbers that are being claimed by the itac are not possible without hot camshafts, bigger injectors, etc.

Marshall, one of your own has stated that those were his numbers, on a non-Motec car. He&#39;s admitted that he&#39;s left HP on the table. While I know numbers vary from day to day, and from dyno to dyno, those are numbers that one of the E36 folks has submitted. Nobody&#39;s making those up.

and the bmw&#39;s that were running that race with the integra at summit? NOT slow. one of the cars is the same one that set the track record before the restrictors were added. you just assume the integra may have been cheating? the owner driver is a very sharp guy who wouldn&#39;t do that. we have a pretty tight group running its in marrs...across all types of cars.

and the track record at watkins glenn was held by a pre-restrictor bmw that was very fast with a great driver. that record was eclipsed handily by an rx7 this summer. the ex-record holder quit its when the restrictor plates came out. he has since turned his car into a bmw cr prepared rule car. what that means is he added hot cams, bigger injectors, 17in wheels, bigger brakes, splitter and wing. only then was he able to run laps faster than the its rx7 did this year. hmmmm.

Sure must not have gotten much HP/speed, for all the money he spent. And just like dyno data vary day by day, so do lap times. And to quit just because a restrictor was added? Kinda confirms the earlier comment about a sense of entitlement.

my suggested solution? if you don&#39;t like us that much just make another it class and dump us in it. i will happily go elsewhere at this point. every rule/restrictor/weight change costs $,$$$ to whatever car is effected, bmw or not. maybe changing every 3-5 years is reasonable with changing car technology, but changing the rules of the game for the same car multiple years in a row is UNACCEPTABLE. feel like the restrictor didn&#39;t reduce the hp enough? how can you tell after just one season, especially if the itac ignores actual race results? leave it alone for a few years. change a few other cars this year. see what happens. or just move us somewhere else. dicing it up with 240z&#39;s, acura&#39;s and mazda&#39;s is fun, but there are more than enough bmw&#39;s around to have fun by ourselves.

Sounds like you&#39;d rather race w/ BMWCCA.

alternative to moving us? the sir concept is interesting alternative to the SAFETY (that was specificaly for you K) and cost implications of more weight. anybody know a good source of info on how it works? if they work, why not specify one for every car in its? that way nobody could cheat above a certain hp spec&#39;d for thier car...it would certainly cap engine development costs...

marshall

[snapback]60506[/snapback]

The safety card, in this case, is totally weak, and has no supporting data. There are other cars, classed heavier than the E36 325, and w/ smaller brakes. They seem to get by. Oh, and as I said before, it&#39;s YOUR responsibility to not overdrive your car! BTW, I agree w/ Kirk. A big to the ITAC, and how they&#39;ve changed things over the last 2 years. I&#39;ve been convinced that the &#39;give it a chance to work&#39; approach is working. Nice job you guys! (Ok, nobody faint!).

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 18 2005, 03:37 PM
gotta love selective, filtered hearing. sheesh. any point an e36 person makes on this board is immediately discarded.

BS. Your opinion counts, it is just one though. And your assertion that 210 whp is unobtainable is just rediculous. I have seen a 10whp spread on Speedsource 13B&#39;s right out of the box. I have seen a 6whp difference in Spec Miata CRATE motors out of the box. Is it possible you haven&#39;t seen the best of the best?

some denial? of course! all we see are bs hp numbers flying around and being used to justify a higher weight. i see claims that all factors are considered in classifying cars, but then in the same para it says. hp/weight targets are used to determine weight, no other factors. wtf??? the term garbage in, garbage out applies here.

Perfect example of you reading only what you want to. NO OTHER FACTORS? Are you joking?

and the track record at watkins glenn was held by a pre-restrictor bmw that was very fast with a great driver. that record was eclipsed handily by an rx7 this summer. the ex-record holder quit its when the restrictor plates came out. he has since turned his car into a bmw cr prepared rule car. what that means is he added hot cams, bigger injectors, 17in wheels, bigger brakes, splitter and wing. only then was he able to run laps faster than the its rx7 did this year. hmmmm.

Name the driver and car. We broke the long course track record in the fall of 2004 and then re-broke it this year. At that same fall event in 2004, a 944S was also under the record but Leverone was faster.

my suggested solution? if you don&#39;t like us that much just make another it class and dump us in it. i will happily go elsewhere at this point. every rule/restrictor/weight change costs $,$$$ to whatever car is effected, bmw or not. maybe changing every 3-5 years is reasonable with changing car technology, but changing the rules of the game for the same car multiple years in a row is UNACCEPTABLE. feel like the restrictor didn&#39;t reduce the hp enough? how can you tell after just one season, especially if the itac ignores actual race results? leave it alone for a few years. change a few other cars this year. see what happens. or just move us somewhere else. dicing it up with 240z&#39;s, acura&#39;s and mazda&#39;s is fun, but there are more than enough bmw&#39;s around to have fun by ourselves.

alternative to moving us? the sir concept is interesting alternative to the SAFETY (that was specificaly for you K) and cost implications of more weight. anybody know a good source of info on how it works? if they work, why not specify one for every car in its? that way nobody could cheat above a certain hp spec&#39;d for thier car...it would certainly cap engine development costs...

marshall

[snapback]60506[/snapback]

I really can&#39;t get a handle on your postion Marshall. In one breath you say that you don&#39;t make the HP we have proof of, then you seem to accept the concept of an SIR as a means of realing the cars back in. To be fair, what crank hp would you think is accurate to use as a BASIS for a minimum weight in the E36?

You are 100% right that the money needed to stay up front sucks. It does suck that the Bimmer guys have had to &#39;develop&#39; again due to the RP...but it was an attempt at parity. One that was needed. The jury is still out on what effect the RP&#39;s have had. We have had info that says it killed power and we have had info that says with some creativity within the rules (legal), the RP&#39;s mean nothing.

I would like to ask Bruce, Driscoll and Marshall these questions:

What crank HP should we use as the BEST of the BEST?
What weight is fair?
Would you like to eliminate and RP technology (SIR of flat plate)?
Do you think the E36 is THE car to have given equal prep and equal driving?
What kind of power do you think Clay&#39;s, Chet&#39;s, Stepp&#39;s cars made? They all passed teardown...give me a number.

*My* goal for ITS is a class like the other classes in IT, especially ITA and ITB where there are at least 4 marques that have a legitimate shot at a checker. With a straight face, can you tell me any other car that has a chance at the ARRC for the win barring a racing incident or mechanical?

I am using these questions to get your official positions for the record. It will help the rest of the group understand better.

AB

[DoubleD]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Sep 18 2005, 07:46 PM-->

The jury is still out on what effect the RP&#39;s have had.
[/b]

And yet you&#39;re a proponent of more changes? You don&#39;t know if your last change worked or not but you want to make ANOTHER?

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Sep 18 2005, 07:46 PM
I would like to ask Bruce, Driscoll and Marshall these questions:


What kind of power do you think Clay&#39;s, Chet&#39;s, Stepp&#39;s cars made? They all passed teardown...give me a number.


I am using these questions to get your official positions for the record. It will help the rest of the group understand better.

AB

[snapback]60515[/snapback]

Using someone&#39;s guess at these items is a horrible, horrible way to go about collecting data. Is this really how ITAC is collecting data?

you want him to guess at what HP Clay&#39;s car had as part of an official record?

I&#39;d like YOUR responses for the record on the questions above.

[mlytle]

let&#39;s see...too many quotes to quote so let me try in order..

bill miller&#39;s stuff..
-the bs numbers i am refering too are the 217 -220 whp ones. bruce&#39;s 195 number is in line with several other good cars i know of. my example is that one of the top guys did my engine and those were the results.
-vince leo was the glen record holder i was refering to. he didn&#39;t quit because of the restrictor plate. i didn&#39;t say that he did. rereading my post you could read it that way though. i meant he quit around the time the rp&#39;s came out.
-no, i wouldn&#39;t rather race with bmwcca. their rules are all over the map and i believe the quality of the average driver is lower. i liked scca because of the rules stability. i drive a bmw not because of any perception that it is the killer car to have. i happen to have been driving bmw&#39;s for over 30 years. i just like them. didn&#39;t matter if it was fast or not, i never considered anything else.
-the safety card is not bs or unsupported. there are bulletins out in the bmw racing world about the weakness of the parts i mentioned. they fail without warning no matter how often you check them. common sense says significant extra weight puts more stress on these already edgy suspension parts. there are ways recommended to beef up these areas, but they are not allowed in it rules.
-and i don&#39;t object to the efforts of the itac to change stuff. i just object to inflicting more pain than necessary on one car with multiple changes and the lack of public knowledge of the process they are using.

andy b&#39;s stuff..
-your opening line an example of the problem i stated.
btw - i have drag raced ed york&#39;s car on starts. (he had faster lap times than chet at the arrc and at vir) and he doesn&#39;t run away. now go look at the dyno info on my car. (his 20+ years of racing kills me in the corners, but that isn&#39;t relevant to this.. ) if the best of the best was making 30 more rwhp than i am, like some of the claims on this board, he would be out of sight before i got to turn one.

-see info above regarding the glenn. oh, and a 944 has gone faster than the bmw too? nice. good data. now we should have bmw, mazda and porsche outliers. and congrats again on the rx7 efforts! you guys have done an awesome job.
- my positions on the hp claims and the sir are not contradictory. the claims are bs and sir&#39;s may be a way to help prove that. i don&#39;t know a lot about sir&#39;s but they seem like a decent way to cap ALL cars hp. no more worrying about who has an illegal cam (except rotaries, of course!). do what ever to the motor, it can only suck enough air for xxx hp. is that how they work?
-money to stay up front is part of the game, but only if that money is to try something new by your choice. money to stay in the game that is legislated on you by continuous rule changes SUCKS.

the questions...
1/ i don&#39;t know. how is it measured? what is the driveline loss? what kind of dyno? can this data also be provided accurately for ALL cars? don&#39;t be whining about one marque of cars hp if the same level of data isn&#39;t provided for all cars.
2/ 2850. bmwcca cr races these cars at 2900, but they are allowed to reinforce the weak areas.
3/ no. i have said it several times now. investigate expanding to ALL cars, not just bmw&#39;s.
4/ no, but i like them (see above in the bill section).
5/ see number one.

now, how about asking those SAME questions to owners of every kind of car?

marshall

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 18 2005, 08:38 PM
And yet you&#39;re a proponent of more changes? You don&#39;t know if your last change worked or not but you want to make ANOTHER?
Using someone&#39;s guess at these items is a horrible, horrible way to go about collecting data. Is this really how ITAC is collecting data?

you want him to guess at what HP Clay&#39;s car had as part of an official record?

I&#39;d like YOUR responses for the record on the questions above.

[snapback]60516[/snapback]

I am NOT a proponent of ADDITIONAL changes. I am a proponent of working the E36 into the same &#39;system&#39; that most everything else is in - especially since it is the dominant car. Simple really. Having said that, we just made a SLEW of recommended changes. The E36 was NOT a car among them. Why? The CRB decided on a RP for 2005 and we need to let it run it&#39;s course and then evaluate. Most of the data to date shows the potential for no restriction.

I am not using the info as a DATA point, but trying to get these racers to go ON THE RECORD as to what they think so we can understand what fact their opinions are based in. This will help everyone qualify their positions.

I will post my answers after they do. I don&#39;t want to taint their responses, if they so choose to do so.

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 18 2005, 08:56 PM
the questions...
1/ i don&#39;t know. how is it measured? what is the driveline loss? what kind of dyno? can this data also be provided accurately for ALL cars? don&#39;t be whining about one marque of cars hp if the same level of data isn&#39;t provided for all cars.
2/ 2850. bmwcca cr races these cars at 2900, but they are allowed to reinforce the weak areas.
3/ no. i have said it several times now. investigate expanding to ALL cars, not just bmw&#39;s.
4/ no, but i like them (see above in the bill section).
5/ see number one.
marshall

[snapback]60517[/snapback]

1. I asked for crank hp, no ideas?
2. What does the BMWCCA weight have to do with anything? Do they race against 20 other brands in the same class?
3. As do I. The technology is excellent.
4. Gotcha.
5. Understood. I use 18% for a RWD car as a general rule. Dynojet is also the standard I use but we can make comparisons to other types based on the info we have available to us. We have dyno and crank numbers for many of the top ITS cars. The CRB leison the ITAC RUNS a dyno. No whining, the info is there.

- and THANK YOU for answering. It&#39;s important for everyone to know where we all stand to make credibility judgements.

AB

[SPiFF]

Sheesh .. I am not sure if all this BMW hating should make me laugh of cry. :119:

Looking back in 5 years, classing the BMW is the best thing that could have happened to S. Much like putting the CRX into A.

You guys should stop trying to kill the BMW and drop the weighs of the other cars by 100# or so. Then class some new cars-- IS/GS/CS300, Supra/NA, 300XZ/NA, E30M3, Integra Type-R, RSX Type-S, TSX, Celica GTS, etc.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by SPiFF@Sep 18 2005, 09:21 PM
Sheesh .. I am not sure if all this BMW hating should make me laugh of cry. :119:

Looking back in 5 years, classing the BMW is the best thing that could have happened to S. Much like putting the CRX into A.

You guys should stop trying to kill the BMW and drop the weighs of the other cars by 100# or so. Then class some new cars-- IS/GS/CS300, Supra/NA, 300XZ/NA, E30M3, Integra Type-R, RSX Type-S, TSX, Celica GTS, etc.

[snapback]60520[/snapback]

Then you have the SAME issue. What would a 222hp 300ZX have to weigh to FIT into ITS? 52 more hp than a GSR with over 90 more ft of torque - just to start?

I would love to class these cars...above ITS...

And seriously, any non-BMW drivers out there see this as "BMW-hating" and an attempt to "kill" the E36? If you do, I have failed in my ability to relay my impartiality, the process, the factors, etc.

I&#39;ll let ya&#39;ll finish this one up.

AB

[Bill Miller]

the bs numbers i am refering too are the 217 -220 whp ones. bruce&#39;s 195 number is in line with several other good cars i know of. my example is that one of the top guys did my engine and those were the results

Marshall,

You stated that your engine was done by a top builder, as a top of the line motor. Bruce has stated that his car is less than that. If you&#39;re making less than 195 WHP, but your builder is selling you a &#39;top of the line motor&#39;, may I suggest that someone is shining you on?

But let&#39;s look at this another way. I&#39;ll ask this of Andy, Darin, or Jake. Based on the process, what would the WHP of the E36 be, if you started w/ the 2850# spec weight, and worked it backwards to get the hp out of it? Take all the adders out of the equation, and what weight are you at, vs what the target lb/hp ratio is? Now, work it forward, starting w/ 205 WHP.

Thanks

[Catch22]

Oh, I understand exactly what you guys are doing Andy, and its a fine job.

Its just a matter of philosophy. Guys like Zsolt (spiff) would like to see cars like the GSR accepted as the LOW point of the class spec, not the mid point as Darin pointed out above.
Drop it down to bare bones weight (under 2550) and then weight the BMW, 944S, IS300, etc., etc. based on that.
Really, if cars like the 240z, GSR, and RX7 are the low point of the spec range, not the mid, THEN you CAN reasonably add some newer cars at a realistic weight and the BMW doesn&#39;t look like a 3200 pounder on paper.

But this philosophy accepts that you are obsoleting some older cars. Not just obsoleting them, but basically ignoring them. Its the "Look, you guys can run these Jensen Healeys if you want to, but you&#39;re on your own. We&#39;re moving on."

Some would agree that progress marches on and this isnt such a bad thing. Others would argue that the club needs to continue to make every effort to keep as many cars as possible reasonably within a competitive range. This approach means that newer cars are almost ALWAYS going to be ballasted to high heaven.

Again, its not a matter of right or wrong. Its a matter of perspective and philosophy.

For the "current" ITS, the IS300 is too fast.
But for an ITS with 2525lb Integras, 2575lb RX7s and 2900lb BMWs... Maybe the IS300 fits...

See what I&#39;m saying?
Hope so, I can&#39;t figure out how to put it any better than that.

Scott, who admits he&#39;d rather see less ballast and more progress, but understands why thats not so easy to do.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Scott,

I understand your philosophy and agree to a certain extent. If I were king, I would try to keep most cars in the &#39;middle&#39; and add new class of cars as demand dictated. ITR, if you will.

AB