IS300 in ITS?

[its66]

Correct. Mercedes. Saturday It was driven by Irish Mike. Sunday, it was flown by Todd Buras--great job again...

[imported_Webmaster]

Holy Hi-Jacked post batmat... :angry:
OK so is anyone going to answer the original poster's question?

And now for the "just as guilty" joining the hijacking of this post. :P MB photos:

[mlytle]

some "baddest of the bad" bmw's have run at watkins glen......and yet the track record was smashed in july of this year.....by an rx7.

has anyone compiled a list of track records and what car holds them? not a definitive "proof" of course, but another data set in the mix.

[JeffYoung]

Ok, let's boil it down to this, since results are always going to be subjective and a moving target.

I would lke a BMW driver to post here, with a straight face, that the car is classed at the correct weight.

Cause it's not.

That's the only issue with the car. I don't care if it makes 222 rwhp or 195. Doesn't matter -- what you can do legally within the rules is legit. But the car weight is just plain wrong.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 14 2005, 01:05 PM
Ok, let's boil it down to this, since results are always going to be subjective and a moving target.

I would lke a BMW driver to post here, with a straight face, that the car is classed at the correct weight.

Cause it's not.

That's the only issue with the car. I don't care if it makes 222 rwhp or 195. Doesn't matter -- what you can do legally within the rules is legit. But the car weight is just plain wrong.

[snapback]60144[/snapback]

[Devil's advocate] Jeff, what IS the CORRECT weight? [/Devil's advocate]

Darin's posted up some numbers, based on the ITAC's process. If that's what's in place, then that's what's in place. As he said, they're not based on on-track data, they're based on performance data. Seems pretty objective to me. To me, the on-track data simply support the fact that the process predicts a higher weight than is currently spec'd.

Here's what the process says the weight should be, so that's what it is.

Unfortunately, it's not really a two-way street. It will be born out rather quickly, if the predicted weight is too low. 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.

[robits325is]

If Nicks blue RX-7 was maxed out (10/10ths to quote) last year at the ARRC when the restrictor plate topic really heated up then how did he set new lap records around the NER this year?

BMW owners/drivers just keep pushing the envelope of development within the rules. Should they be penalized? Should everyone else get a helping hand to keep things equal? Where is the performance ceiling set?

Rob

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 13 2005, 11:19 PM
And I do have to say your claim that there are no other makes out ther as fully developed as BMWs is just wrong. People have taken teh 240zs and RX7s to places that were not thought possible. If you are saying that the RX7s and Zs at teh front of the field -- Chet Wittel's Orange Z or Nick's blue RX7 or Steve's black RX7 -- aren't maxed...well, you are just wrong.

[snapback]60120[/snapback]

[lateapex911]

Bill, I gotta hand it to you, you hit many nails on the head with that one.....

Jeff...The curb weight is taken into consideration in the process, but the question is usually, "Can this car make the weight it needs to be?"

The process defines the race weight based on creating a competitive model that fits the performance envelope.

Some cars might need to weigh, lets say, 2500 pounds to be competitive in a certain class, but it is known that they could never actually get down that low, so, the next class down is looked at, and the process is repeated for that class.

In the E36s case, it COULD get down even lower, so it might be a candidate for the class above....except there IS no class above.

The ITCS has a few examples of cars that are misclassed and/or at the wrong weights. They are being worked on.

[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 robits325is@Sep 14 2005, 06:37 PM
If Nicks blue RX-7 was maxed out (10/10ths to quote) last year at the ARRC when the restrictor plate topic really heated up then how did he set new lap records around the NER this year?

[snapback]60148[/snapback]

It's funny to me how people think that 10/10ths only involves putting parts on the car...

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.... The same might be said about the CRX... Lot's of them out there, usually driven by friendly guys who talk to each other...

Also, we are not ALL "excellent" drivers, regardless of what our egos might tell us... Just because someone has a car that they feel is built "to the limit", that doesn't mean that the car is being driven there... Development involves the driver as well, and when combined with what I mentioned above, it's possible that the driver has discovered new limits, or made a tweak which extended the limits a bit...

In reality, there is NO such thing as "Fully Developed"... Built to the max of the rules, maybe, but as I think I've shown that this does not equate to "fully developed"...

These are reasons why ON-TRACK data is NOT the basis for making IT decisions... It is, as Bill mentioned above, a good check of the process, but it's a TERRIBLE way to make decisions on adjustments... Just look at Production, where they truely penalize those who make the all-out effort by adding weight to those that are winning, regardless whether the mechanical parameters of the car warrent such adjustments...

If you run the numbers on the RX-7, both theoretical and actual dyno numbers, you'd find that it's classified as the process defines. The same is true of the 240Z. The 944 is too heavy... The 944S is a bit too light... The 240SX is close, but will require an 10/10ths effort to make that weight... Several cars are overweight at this point, some are slightly underweight at this point... Some are in the wrong class all-together... The same pattern exists in all the classes...

The BMW in question, using the exact same process, is considerably under weight... PERIOD... That's what the numbers show... both teoretical AND Actual Dyno numbers... These have NOTHING to do with BMW owners, a bias against BMWs, the fact that BMWs are expensive, or any other contrived argument as to why this car get's talked about...

ALL of the ITAC recommendations and adjustments over the past two years have been made using this process, and we will continue to do so, so long as the CRB continues to entrust us with this responsibility... And yes... getting things balanced out will take a bit of time (has taken a bit of time...), but we are working on it... We will continue to push to get these classes into a condition where the classifications make sense, and the compeition is as balanced as possible... from a mechanical parmeters standpoint, anyhow... (we can't and won't adjust classifications based on a "racing program" or, in other words, on-track performance)...

So, all this being said, the BMW IS too light, and has been since it's current weight was finalized a while back... Let's not forget that it was originally classified at 2950, and then, through some loophole in the rules and a claim that it couldn't meet that weight due to ballast not being allowed, it's weight was lowered to 2850...

This car is singled out because it IS the problem with ITS... It's an outlier on the classification list. Real data shows this... Theoretical data shows this... and on-track performance validates this... the same can NOT be said about any other car in ITS... RX-7s may perform, but the data shows they are classified correctly... the 944 does not compete... the data shows us why... 240Z... competes, data shows why...

This is about as UNBIASED a decision as the come...

[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

[Bill Miller]

James,

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

Jake,

Thanks!

Darin,

Nicely put!

[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...

[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

[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's to build a car when they know it'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's not competitive, and it's not competitve because no one runs it? A real catch 22 if you ask me.

James

[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?

[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