IS300 in ITS?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 15 2005, 01:43 AM
let's get back to some real data somewhere. how about those track records that are mostly held by rx7'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's 237 flywheel hp... That'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'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't care if we EVER see a lap time on ANY of these cars... that'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't work...

[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 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's 237 flywheel hp... That'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's notions on this cars potential...

----Snip----

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

James

[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

[Catch22]

Well, I just can't stay out of it any longer.

Earlier this year, a BMW WITH restrictor plate smashed its own track record at Road Atlanta, In July, it was about 92 degrees.

I've seen what this car has at the wheels, and its a legal car. It has ALOT of money in it and its extremely well driven, but its legal. People think it isn't, but to date nobody has proved otherwise.

Now, I had an Integra GSR that was ITS prepped. Fully built OPM motor and tuned on the exact same dyno as the above mentioned BMW. The best we could do was 172hp at the wheels. Forget about torque... 129.
I'm not going to say what the BMW had, but I will say I deemed the Integra hopeless at that point and sold it to a Honda Challenge guy. The BEST that car will get, no matter how much money you throw at it, is about 180whp. Anything higher than that and you are cheating.
Make no mistake about it, 172whp from a 1994 Integra GSR is pretty stout, but its dog meat to a half-assed 325, forget about the *good* ones.

So... What do we do about it?
Well, its not easy, but here's what you do...

1. Add about 100lbs to the BMW and call it soup. Leave it alone after that and concentrate on letting the rest of the cars get faster instead of slowing the BMW down, because frankly, it isn't going to happen.
2. Reduce the weight on a couple of current cars. The RX7s are carrying ballast, sometimes alot, and so are the GSRs. There is no reason for the GSR, with no torque and Civic brakes to weigh close to 2700lbs. It needs to be about 100lbs less than that. The Preludes are too heavy too.
3. Look at classing some new cars. The Integra Type R comes to mind. Less than 200hp and short on torque. Don't be scared of this car, its just a slightly better GSR. At current GSR weight this car *might* be a match for the BMW at 2900+lbs.
The Celica GTS should be coming up soon as well.
4. Monitor and adjust accordingly.

Look guys, I watched Tom Fowler just plain drive the wheels off what is likely the worlds fastest ITS Prelude at Road Atlanta earlier this year. He was wringing that car out, and he's one hell of a driver. The end result... 1.5 seconds slower than the fastest BMW. Slower than several BMWs as a matter of fact, but on par with some RX7s and 240s.

My point, stop concentrating on slowing the BMW down and start pulling lead out of 4 or 5 other chassis in the class. It won't necessarily solve the problem, but it will certainly help. The BMW is there, for better or worse, and there's just no reason for RX7 and Integra drivers to be bolting 100lbs of lead in their cars when they are an underdog WITHOUT it.
I know its not as simple as it sounds, but you have to start somewhere.

BTW - I agree that the Lexus and Toyota products mentioned above are too much for ITS. Just because one cow is out of the barn doesn't mean the door should get propped open.

[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's may not be the most efficient in the drive train department. A friend of mine just dyno'ed his Z3 post DASC and used a fudge factor of 21% Or maybe it's just because we're using the atiquated e-30 rear suspension.

James

[snapback]60232[/snapback]

Interesting comment. Doing a little data analysis, and assuming that there's a 21% driveline loss, rather than the 18% that Darin suggested. That's another 10+ FHP (Flywheel HP). Or, looked at another way, a 30%+ increase over stock, in IT tune. And that'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's number of 18%). That'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's not just about peak hp or peak torque, it's about the area under the curve. I think that you'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's just an academic excercise, I think it would be interesting.

As far as 'getting it right', out of the ITAC process, I'll say, w/ a faily high level of confidence, that it's probably closer than it is now. At the very least, if all the cars in the ITCS are 'run through' (which it's my understanding, is happening), everyone gets treated the same. If we're going to cotinue to cling to the 'no guarantee' concept, I don't think anyone can ask (or expect) more than that. It's objective, and pretty much what I've been advocating from the very earliest of discussion about a formula or process (even if it'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'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's number suggest that you're already on (or past) the high end w/ a "shopping cart" car.

[Ron Earp]

What I find interesting, or I suppose I should say discouraging, is that there are folks who have the data that can put this rwhp issue to rest. There are two BMWs in the SE that are considerably faster than the rest of the field (have a look at the VIR results) and certainly lay down what I would consider benchmarks for the car. They are current SCCA racers and certainly have the data needed to make heads or tails of the hp potential of the 2.5 I6 in the BMW. But, they do not contribute. Perhaps they do not read here, but I'm certain that someone that knows them reads here and possibly has the information themselves.

I, along with probably many other car enthusaists that become SCCA racers, have owned an E36 BMW. And, having owned the car and driven a few others, I know that the weight of the car is not correct. Most cars in the class are within a few percent of their street weight. Hell, my own car appears to be classed higher than its street trim weight, but that is another story. How many cars are classed at 10-11% less than street trim? There might be a few, but certainly the car that is perceived as an overdog shound not have this weight classification. Class it at 3050lbs or so, remove the restrictor (didn't appear to do anything anyhow to the fast ones), and see how it does.

Ron

PS-Glad to see the IT board is back with some healthy discussion, I had to go over to sm.com for a bit to get my reading in, but I think I might be back!

[zracre]

At the July Road Atlanta SARRC:

Qualifying:

ITS Chris Newberry 240SX 1:43.115
ITS Tony Burdette BMW 1:44.060
ITS Jeff Buice Bmw 1:44.634


Results:

ITS Jeff Buice BMW 1:43.535
ITS Chris Newberry 240SX 1:43.599
ITS Dan Shaver BMW 1:45.279

It was a great race but more than 50 percent of the field was a 325...there are just lots of good developed cars out there...

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 14 2005, 03:31 PM

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...

The only thing that can be justified in your post is that there is the large number of Spec Miata’s and the progress they have made. There is now a large number of E36’s, several really good development programs, and an abundance of really good go-fast parts. And this might be a shocker, we BMW drivers do share setup information.

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...

Interesting that the members of the ITAC all consider there cars to be classified about right. Andy - RX7; Darren - 240 SX. Might be time for a little more diversity on the ITAC?

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 15 2005, 09:05 AM

Interesting that the members of the ITAC all consider there cars to be classified about right. Andy - RX7; Darren - 240 SX. Might be time for a little more diversity on the ITAC?

[snapback]60246[/snapback]

You know Bruce, I may not agree w/ those guys all the time, but the last thing that I would think, is that they're using their positions to promote their own cars, or hold a competitor's car back. That was a really low-class comment. :angry: You obviously have lost whatever objectivity that you had in this matter.

BTW, I think Andy runs a SM now.

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 15 2005, 09:26 AM
You know Bruce, I may not agree w/ those guys all the time, but the last thing that I would think, is that they're using their positions to promote their own cars, or hold a competitor's car back. That was a really low-class comment. :angry: You obviously have lost whatever objectivity that you had in this matter.

BTW, I think Andy runs a SM now.

[snapback]60248[/snapback]

Bill, too bad that is the way you percieve it. Just calling it like I see it.

I've never been objective when it comes to this topic.

If Andy is no longer driving an RX7, when did he quite being an advocate for the car?

Edit to add a few more comments!

[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't believe that we are having this conversation again but Marshall does bring up a point that hasn't had the attention that it deserve in past re-hashing of the arguments.

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 15 2005, 01:45 PM
Just calling it like I see it.

[snapback]60250[/snapback]

You obviously need glasses...

If you had actually understood what I've been saying... I wouldn't have to say the following again... the class is DEFINED by the cars mentioned in that post, which means, by default, they are going to be "classified correctly"... of course they "fit"... And, every car that has been adjusted or classified since is going to "fit"... the 240Z and the RX-7 WERE the best examples of the class... right up until the BMW E36 was classified... The VAST MAJORITY of the cars in the class are either close, or could be made to be close, from a wt/hp ratio and classification process perspective, to these two cars... It would be very difficult, it no impossible, however, to define the class in terms of the BMW and equate everyone else to that... It's about 1.3 to 1.5 wt/pwr points better than anything else in the class at it's current weight. You just can't make all these other cars that light. So, the obvious alternative is to bring the cars below up to the line, and the cars above back down to the line...

Let me put this in as simple a form as I can so you'll hopefully understand... The 240Z and the RX-7 were chosen as the representative cars in the class. Their parameters were analyzed, and their competition potential was determined... Since there are many of them, and they have been around awhile, and there is lot's of data on them, we think we have a good handle on what they are capable of.

A target wt/pwr ratio was determined based on these cars. Adders are used to adjust for the differences in brakes, gear ratios, suspension, etc... The classification process is based on these numbers...

THEREFORE, these cars "fit" because the process was borne USING THEIR SPECS... SAVVY???

Looking at the rest of the class... some cars are below the line, and a few are above...

You happen to fall in the later catagory... deal with that as you will...

And, for the record, the ONLY two times the 240SX has even been talked about on the ITAC, in any kind of official sense, was once because the brake specs were listed wrong (no 240SX ever came with 295mm front brakes...), and recently when we looked at all the cars in the class and analyzed their classification specs vs. the process... You talk to ANYONE on the ITAC or the CRB and they'll tell you that I am ADAMANT about abstaining from any official discussion concerning this particular car, specifically because I DO own one and I don't want the credibility of the ITAC questioned because of a conflict of interest...

Andy is the same way, as is the rest of the group... The only thing Andy has ever done concerning the RX-7 is given us as real-world performance data from the best preparred RX-7s in the country. (would be nice if everyone were as willing to give honest information... )

Nice try, though...

[Catch22]

Originally posted by zracre@Sep 15 2005, 11:27 AM
At the July Road Atlanta SARRC:

Qualifying:

ITS Chris Newberry 240SX 1:43.115
ITS Tony Burdette BMW 1:44.060
ITS Jeff Buice Bmw 1:44.634
Results:

ITS Jeff Buice BMW 1:43.535
ITS Chris Newberry 240SX 1:43.599
ITS Dan Shaver BMW 1:45.279

Thats from the SARRC race. The fast guys were in the Pro-IT.
Check the Pro IT results and you'll see BMW times in the 1:40s and some ITA times nearly as fast as the ITS times you posted above.

Fowler ran high 1:41s that same weekend in the ECR in his Prelude. Would have easily won him the SARRC race.

You can't pick and choose data and call something a good race. I had a race at VIR earlier this year where I damned near lapped up to 2nd place in my class by the time the checkered had flown. Does that mean my car needs to be moved to ITA? No, it means none of the fast guys showed up.

Garbage in, Garbage out.

BTW - I don't drive an ITS car and never will. Too expensive for me to enjoy it. But I do think the classing is all messed up and is killing a bunch of otherwise good cars at the expense of one very expensive to buy/build/run Overdog. Thats bad news for all of us, and it needs to be fixed.
JMO.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 15 2005, 09:45 AM
Bill, too bad that is the way you percieve it. Just calling it like I see it.

I've never been objective when it comes to this topic.

If Andy is no longer driving an RX7, when did he quite being an advocate for the car?

Edit to add a few more comments!

[snapback]60250[/snapback]

Certainly your right Bruce. I submit that your lack of objectivity has colored your perception. And your original comment indicated that Andy was still running an RX7, and that he was using his position to gain an advantage for his car. Those are some pretty heavy accusations to throw around. Especially since there's not much to support it. And, since you haven't noticed, the only people that DON'T think the E36 is too light, are the folks that are running them.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 15 2005, 02:37 PM
you haven't noticed, the only people that DON'T think the E36 is too light, are the folks that are running them.

[snapback]60255[/snapback]

I'm not running one, you are right. But still, I say again:

"I, along with probably many other car enthusaists that become SCCA racers, have owned an E36 BMW. And, having owned the car and driven a few others, I know that the weight of the car is not correct. Most cars in the class are within a few percent of their street weight. Hell, my own car appears to be classed higher than its street trim weight, but that is another story. How many cars are classed at 10-11% less than street trim? There might be a few, but certainly the car that is perceived as an overdog shound not have this weight classification. Class it at 3050lbs or so, remove the restrictor (didn't appear to do anything anyhow to the fast ones), and see how it does."

Ron

[JeffYoung]

Ditto what Ron said. Would a BMW driver please justify the 2850 weight for the car? It is just flat out wrong.

Jake, thanks for the kind words above. By the way, Dr. Earp has ventured over into enemy territory (SM) while we sort the Jensen, only to find out that SMs can be as problematic as our rusty, leaky old Brit cars.....or maybe it is just us......are you coming down for the ARRC this year? Like Kirk I may come spectate...might even race, we'll see.

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 15 2005, 10:30 AM
You obviously need glasses...

If you had actually understood what I've been saying... I wouldn't have to say the following again...

Do you find if frustrating that the argument you used to justify the increased performance of the Spec Miata was used to explain one of the many reasons the E36 has evolved into the “omnipotent” machine that is has? That was the extent of the entire first paragraph of my first post this morning.

My suggestion that the ITAC needs more diversity appears to have been overlooked. I'll be the second person on this thread to ask how and where does one sign up for the ITAC?

[chuck baader]

If I understand the jist of this thread correctly, most are of the opinion that the e36 is under weight. Look at some facts. The SpeedSource RX7s were dominate until SpeedSource quit developing them....5 years ago? The 240Z dominated until 4 years ago? when development basically ended?(and by the way, I think Chett's old blue/orange car is still faster than his e36....IN HIS HANDS!!) So we have a couple of extremely capable drivers that could take any of our cars and run considerably quicker than we could....would that make our cars underweight? 99% of us that race cannot drive our cars to their maximun potential, but you want to slow all the cars because there are a couple that spend the time and money and happen to be able to outdrive us? I don't think that fair either. If the ITAC is going to do anything, I think it should be to look at average cars...which most are...and disregard the few over and under the curve.

An interesting side about the lap times posted for the July RA SARRC. About 4 years ago, when I started racing, Tony Burdett was turning those same lap times in his e30 325!! The RX7s and 240Zs were about 2-3 seconds quicker. Chuck