IS300 in ITS?

[Banzai240]

Guys... PLEASE keep in mind here, that, regardless of what this conversation appears to be about, this whole deal is NOT just about the BMW... That model just happens to stand out and is easy to talk about ...

This is really about ALL of IT... I can assure you that there is WAY more in the works here than simply adjusting the BMW... If anything gets done (still an "IF" at this point), it needs to be a PACKAGE DEAL, designed to make some pretty significant adjustments to IT in general...

In other words, there are many, many cars that are out of whack, on both sides of the middle... The only "right" thing to do would be to attempt to correct IT, not just the BMW...

Like I've said before, there is no "singling" out of this car going on on the ITAC... If you'll give us the time, I have a feeling that you'll be pleased what we are attempting to accomplish, and hopefully even more pleased with the results, should they get implemented... Be patient...

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Webmaster@Sep 14 2005, 09:29 AM
Holy Hi-Jacked post batmat... :angry:
OK so is anyone going to answer the original poster's question?

When I came back to this thread, I was going to suggest that if you classed the IS300 into a higher class, maybe you could also class the 98-00 M-roadster into the same class. But this current tangent looks much more interesting.

As I've not got a car yet, and the Miata looks dominant out here, maybe I should just go that route. Since you can't add weight to it because of the cage, when I've got a real suspension on it with solid bushings and the non-spec roll bars, not to mention getting rid of the stock exhaust manifold and giving it a full IT build on the motor, watch out

James

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 14 2005, 07:12 PM
Since you can't add weight to it because of the cage, when I've got a real suspension on it with solid bushings and the non-spec roll bars, not to mention getting rid of the stock exhaust manifold and giving it a full IT build on the motor, watch out

James

[snapback]60151[/snapback]

If the Miata proves to be overclassified, the ITAC will recommend that it receive a restrictor (Single Inlet Restrictor) to bring it's HP output back in line with the rest of the class...

It is currently classified based on theoretical and known numbers, but with the assumption that someone may be able to get a little more out of it... Again, it has already been agreed that a restrictor would be recommended if there is data to warrent it...

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 12:31 PM
Snip--
You guys want to know why SM is SOOO much faster than it appears it should be??? Because there are HUNDREDS of them out there tweaking, tuning, adjusting, and then SHARING that information with each other... finding the EXACT correct tire pressures, the EXACT right caster/camber combo, etc., etc....
--Snip

On a spec Miata the exact right camber is....as much as you can get of the adjusters :P


But seriously, I get your point that on track performance is also highly dependant on the ultimate bolt on parts, the nuts behind the wheel and also behind the wrench.

James

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 14 2005, 10:53 AM
However, if it's too high, it will take considerably longer to demonstrate that fact. A considerable amount of development time and effort, will have to be expended, by multiple drivers of the same car.

[snapback]60145[/snapback]

Yes, how exactly do you demonstrate that a car is classed too heavy?? Couldn't it always be blamed on no one talented enough driving it, even if they in fact were? How about lack of participation? Or would that too be under not being developed/tweeked? After all who wants to build or buy a car when the best they can do with it is potentially mid pack at best? Wouldn't you use race results to determine this?

James

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 14 2005, 09:34 PM
Wouldn't you use race results to determine this?

James

[snapback]60182[/snapback]

NO... First off... it is the goal of the ITAC to make this a non-issue... If all cars are classified using a balanced process, then they should be pretty close to start with... This being done, if there is hard evidence (multiple dyno data, etc.), that shows that the output of the car was over/underestimated, then adjustments may need to be made...

If you see a pattern here, then you are catching on... The idea is to classify based on the potential of the CAR, and leave the rest up to you... Race results have many factors involved with them, the cars "potential" being only one of them... They can be an indicator, but they alone do not prove/disprove the need for a change...

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 02:51 PM
--Snip--
This being done, if there is hard evidence (multiple dyno data, etc.), that shows that the output of the car was over/underestimated, then adjustments may need to be made...

If you see a pattern here, then you are catching on... The idea is to classify based on the potential of the CAR, and leave the rest up to you... Race results have many factors involved with them, the cars "potential" being only one of them... They can be an indicator, but they alone do not prove/disprove the need for a change...

[snapback]60186[/snapback]

So with very few or no examples running how do you tell if the inital setting was optomistic/pessimistic? Outside of race results how do judge chassie potential. I'm sure some cars that are classified require the builder to make everything, for example suspension bushings. Also, what has to be done to tune a chassie to be competitve is this also not part of the cars potential? I guess my main beef is the sort of chicken and egg problem associated with the less than common cars, no one races them because they're not competitve and they're not competitive because no one races them. So then how do you break the chain?

James

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 15 2005, 12:57 AM
I guess my main beef is the sort of chicken and egg problem associated with the less than common cars, no one races them because they're not competitve and they're not competitive because no one races them. So then how do you break the chain?

James

[snapback]60228[/snapback]

Well, some cars just aren't popular, and are considered uphill builds. To some, that's EXACTLY what they're looking for. They search for the oddball, the overlooked, the forgotten, the never before developed, so that they can be the first to walk the path and be the pioneer.

Guys like Jeff with his TR8, and his friend Ron with his Jensen, both strong contributers to this BBS.

Ron admits his is an uphill battle, but, he also sees considerable potential, and likes the light weight. Lots of eyes are watching, will this car be one of the contenders in ITS? He hopes so, and so do lots of champions of the underdog.

He just might be on to something, and if he is, he has done it...he's broken the chain......

Point being that there are lots of guys out there who know what the "right" cars are, but vote with their hearts and go other ways. If they are successful, suddenly the oddball becomes the overdog. When the E36 was first classed, I can remember hearing skeptical comments about the weight, and how is such a big car going to compete with cars like the 7 and the Z.......

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 14 2005, 11:03 PM
Well, some cars just aren't popular, and are considered uphill builds. To some, that's EXACTLY what they're looking for. They search for the oddball, the overlooked, the forgotten, the never before developed, so that they can be the first to walk the path and be the pioneer.

......

Point being that there are lots of guys out there who know what the "right" cars are, but vote with their hearts and go other ways. If they are successful, suddenly the oddball becomes the overdog. When the E36 was first classed, I can remember hearing skeptical comments about the weight, and how is such a big car going to compete with cars like the 7 and the Z.......

[snapback]60231[/snapback]

Some of us just like

James

"Life IS pain!"
--The Dread Pirate Roberts

[Bill Miller]

James,

That's EXACTLY why I said it wasn't a two-way street.

Jake,

Thanks!

Darin,

Nicely put!

[Super Swift]

I can not speak for horsepower after development, but you’re absolutely wrong on stock horsepower verses classified weight as the e36 is not the top car in such a comparison. (See data below) Any other method is subjective.
D. Jorden is also incorrect since the e36 was originally classified at 2850# which is the current weight.

1 911 T&E (70-72) 2485 175 14.20
2 Prelude non-SH (97-98) 2825 195 14.49
3 Del Sol V-tec (94-96) 2360 160 14.75
4 Calais/Achieva/Grand-Am (86-93)2655 180 14.75
5 Civic Si (99) 2360 160 14.75
6 Prelude (97-98) 2905 195 14.90
7 Corrado 2680 178 15.06
8 325 e36 (92-95) 2850 189 15.08
9 944S (87-88) 2850 188 15.16
10 Milano 3.0 (87-89) 2780 183 15.19
11 Prelude V-tec (93-96) 2905 190 15.29
12 Golf Vr6 (95-99.5) 2680 172 15.58
13 Jetta Vr6 (94-96) 2680 172 15.58
14 Cougar (99) 2650 170 15.59
15 Integra GSR (94-99) 2690 170 15.82

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Super Swift+Sep 14 2005, 09:58 PM-->

I can not speak for horsepower after development, but you’re absolutely wrong on stock horsepower verses classified weight as the e36 is not the top car in such a comparison. .. (See data below) Any other method is subjective.[/b]

WHO CARES about stock hp?? Other than as a starting point... All that matters is HP after it's developed, and some engines gain more than others... Because of that, some of this process HAS to be subjective... You are dreaming if you think it can be done under these conditions any other way...


<!--QuoteBegin-Super Swift@Sep 14 2005, 09:58 PM

D. Jorden is also incorrect since the e36 was originally classified at 2850# which is the current weight.

[snapback]60189[/snapback]

The car was classified at 2850, then revised to 2950, then, as described above, revised again to 2850lbs...

Again, WHO CARES... the car is UNDER WEIGHT, based on all data available, including that sent in by BMW owners themselves... I&#39;ve detailed it all above, and again, much of this is based on data PROVIDED BY BMW owners...

Interesting that it&#39;s ONLY the BMW owners who don&#39;t see the issue...

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Super Swift@Sep 14 2005, 05:58 PM
I can not speak for horsepower after development, but you’re absolutely wrong on stock horsepower verses classified weight as the e36 is not the top car in such a comparison. (See data below) Any other method is subjective.
D. Jorden is also incorrect since the e36 was originally classified at 2850# which is the current weight.

1 911 T&E (70-72) 2485 175 14.20
2 Prelude non-SH (97-98) 2825 195 14.49
3 Del Sol V-tec (94-96) 2360 160 14.75
4 Calais/Achieva/Grand-Am (86-93)2655 180 14.75
5 Civic Si (99) 2360 160 14.75
6 Prelude (97-98) 2905 195 14.90
7 Corrado 2680 178 15.06
8 325 e36 (92-95) 2850 189 15.08
9 944S (87-88) 2850 188 15.16
10 Milano 3.0 (87-89) 2780 183 15.19
11 Prelude V-tec (93-96) 2905 190 15.2912 Golf Vr6 (95-99.5) 2680 172 15.58
13 Jetta Vr6 (94-96) 2680 172 15.58
14 Cougar (99) 2650 170 15.59
15 Integra GSR (94-99) 2690 170 15.82

[snapback]60189[/snapback]

Well, that&#39;s an interesting list, and it does make some points, but in an inadvertant way.

Whenever possible of course, the ideal situation is for a friendly competitor to share his dyno info, post build. You&#39;d be surprised, I guess, on the information that has been submitted, by some top drivers in well prepped cars. Sometimes we see the same car on different dynos.

First, when that happens you have a real number to use, but secondly, there are also parallels you can draw that help get similar cars pinned down. Obviously, this job would be easy if we could secretly X-ray each car as it rolls onto the track for the race, and see the HP it will make! There are some known qualities certain makes and vintages display so that makes the job a bit easier.

I highlighted two cars on the list. They both share the same weight, but their power is off.....just slightly. Look at the difference in weights that result! So, a few hp can make a big difference, and that is what has happened with the E36.

It has been an overacheiver when it comes to making rear wheel power. Another car, which is at the top of the list, the 911, is the opposite. I own a 73 911E, and I can tell you that there aint no way to get that much more juice from that mechanicalyl injected flat 6. It will make a few more, but thats it. So that&#39;s reflected in how many we have seen built. An expensive build, for not much result, and it has to race against a car that puts DOWN 220 or so?? I think not, thankyou! And the reverse is true...we wouldn&#39;t have that many E36s running if the owners didn&#39;t think they were the car to have, would we?

The list shows, btw, how close things really are...a few HP either way and there are some big swings in the final number.

And, on that note, when the final number is very close, certain cars will do well at certain tracks, and vice versa. Isn&#39;t that all anyone can ask?

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 02:51 PM
This being done, if there is hard evidence (multiple dyno data, etc.), that shows that the output of the car was over/underestimated, then adjustments may need to be made...

So then who provides the dyno results? What about when there are only a few cars, or even no cars running? Again, who want&#39;s to build a car when they know it&#39;s not competitve just to get the status quo to change? How many other cars are out there like the 944 that no one runs because it&#39;s not competitive, and it&#39;s not competitve because no one runs it? A real catch 22 if you ask me.

James

[zracre]

some cars respond better to an IT build than others...the only way to open that can is to have someone build every car in the book to the letter of the rules...i highly doubt that will happen...if there is an obvious overdog then they should buy a motor from a respected builder of them and dyno that one...and that will lead to having to dyno every car.....or adjust the other way...lighter rx 7&#39;s z&#39;s preludes etc :119:

[mlytle]

i heard 217
now i hear 220
do i hear 225? anyone?

the mythical e36 engine just keeps making more power. sheesh. i wish mine got within 25 of the original babble....before the restrictor (and the restrictor DID make a difference). none of the top 4 bmw&#39;s in the marrs series makes anywhere near the numbers being thrown about here. all are very competitive and one of them was a arrc contender last year. gimme a break.

let&#39;s get back to some real data somewhere. how about those track records that are mostly held by rx7&#39;s? how about the stellar qualifiying time laid down by an acura at summit over labor day? you can play with the car numbers all day, but what is the performance where the rubber actually hits the road...

unless we all go out and start racing srf&#39;s, there will never be equal parity between the cars. there will NEVER be a formula that classifys cars so that completely different setups will cross the finish line together. there will always be perception of some cars being slow and some cars being fast. if a car is percieved as slow from the get go, nobody will build it to the max and it WILL be slow. if something is percieved as having potential, lots of folks will build them to the hilt, tuners will florish and viola, the car gets fast and even more of them are built. self fulfilling prophecy.

the sailboat racers have been chasing this "parity through rules" pipedream for 200 years with no good results. because of this "one-design" boats, or "spec racers" in car parlance, are now the most popular form of sailboat racing. geee, no wonder formula mazda, spec miata, spec rx7, spec racer ford, etc. make up the majority of most fields.

hey, how about every car classed in IT be precisely spec&#39;d as to what modifications can be made? we are damn near a "spec e36" anyway. there has been so much bmw development there is basically just a checklist of known parts to built a fast one.

marshall

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 15 2005, 01:43 AM
let&#39;s get back to some real data somewhere. how about those track records that are mostly held by rx7&#39;s?

[snapback]60219[/snapback]

How about the Bimmerworld dyno sheets sent to the CRB by Mr. Shafer?? They show 195hp AT THE WHEELS... 18% for drivetrain losses, and that&#39;s 237 flywheel hp... That&#39;s real enough data... or at least it was to Mr. Shafer when he sent it into the CRB in an effort to disprove the ITAC&#39;s notions on this cars potential...

Also, the ITAC has been told that the top prepped BMWs are making 7 more hp WITH the restrictor... You just have to know how to fool the system into not "seeing" the restrictor... something not that hard to do...

I don&#39;t care if we EVER see a lap time on ANY of these cars... that&#39;s the point guys... We are dealing with the mechanical performance parameters of the car... We are trying to equate the PERFORMANCE POTENTIALS of all these IT cars... NOT the car + driver + track conditions + fuel used + weather + track length +..... That doesn&#39;t work...

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 08:31 PM
How about the Bimmerworld dyno sheets sent to the CRB by Mr. Shafer?? They show 195hp AT THE WHEELS... 18% for drivetrain losses, and that&#39;s 237 flywheel hp... That&#39;s real enough data... or at least it was to Mr. Shafer when he sent it into the CRB in an effort to disprove the ITAC&#39;s notions on this cars potential...

----Snip----

Acutally the flywheel hp may be more than that. I understand that BMW&#39;s may not be the most efficient in the drive train department. A friend of mine just dyno&#39;ed his Z3 post DASC and used a fudge factor of 21% Or maybe it&#39;s just because we&#39;re using the atiquated e-30 rear suspension.

James

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 15 2005, 02:21 AM
Acutally the flywheel hp may be more than that. I understand that BMW&#39;s may not be the most efficient in the drive train department. A friend of mine just dyno&#39;ed his Z3 post DASC and used a fudge factor of 21% Or maybe it&#39;s just because we&#39;re using the atiquated e-30 rear suspension.

James

[snapback]60232[/snapback]

Interesting comment. Doing a little data analysis, and assuming that there&#39;s a 21% driveline loss, rather than the 18% that Darin suggested. That&#39;s another 10+ FHP (Flywheel HP). Or, looked at another way, a 30%+ increase over stock, in IT tune. And that&#39;s based on the 195 WHP number from the dyno sheets that Mr. Shafer sent in. That translates to ~247 FHP. If we use a CONSERVATIVE estimate of 210 WHP for a maxed-out car, that translates to over 265 FHP (using this same 21% loss factor, and over 256 FHP using Darin&#39;s number of 18%). That&#39;s a 35-40% FHP gain (depending on which driveline loss # you use) from an IT tune. THAT is a big gain, and it only gets bigger, if the cars are actually making more than 210 WHP.

But, I agree w/ Jake, it&#39;s not just about peak hp or peak torque, it&#39;s about the area under the curve. I think that you&#39;d see a much more telling picture if you looked at say a 3500 - 4000 rpm range (say 4k - 7.5k, or 4k - 8k), and took the area under the HP and torque curves. Then, correlate those data to lap times on various types of tracks (twisty, "handling" tracks, as well as wide-open "horsepower" tracks). While it&#39;s just an academic excercise, I think it would be interesting.

As far as &#39;getting it right&#39;, out of the ITAC process, I&#39;ll say, w/ a faily high level of confidence, that it&#39;s probably closer than it is now. At the very least, if all the cars in the ITCS are &#39;run through&#39; (which it&#39;s my understanding, is happening), everyone gets treated the same. If we&#39;re going to cotinue to cling to the &#39;no guarantee&#39; concept, I don&#39;t think anyone can ask (or expect) more than that. It&#39;s objective, and pretty much what I&#39;ve been advocating from the very earliest of discussion about a formula or process (even if it&#39;s just a simple lb/hp ratio). And cars like the E36 would probably still be ahead of the game, as I think a 35-40+% gain from an IT tune, is probably on the high side. I&#39;m guessing 20-25% gain is more the norm. BTW, that would predict the E36 w/ the M50 motor at between about 225-235 FHP. And Mr. Shafer&#39;s number suggest that you&#39;re already on (or past) the high end w/ a "shopping cart" car.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 15 2005, 01:43 AM
... if a car is percieved as slow from the get go, nobody will build it to the max and it WILL be slow. if something is percieved as having potential, lots of folks will build them to the hilt, tuners will florish and viola, the car gets fast and even more of them are built. self fulfilling prophecy. ...

I can&#39;t believe that we are having this conversation again but Marshall does bring up a point that hasn&#39;t had the attention that it deserve in past re-hashing of the arguments.

K