IS300 in ITS?

[JeffYoung]

Chuck, good points, BUT -- I don't think results should have much if anything to do with "correct" weight. The E36 is underweight compared to all other contender cars in view of its curbweight. That is the issue with it for me, not the horsepower.

BTW, Chet was 3 seconds faster in the E36 at VIR than in the Z.

On a more pleasant note, you running NASA at Roebling in two weeks? Since my SIC waiver was turned down, I'm thinking of taking the NASA plunge.....would be good to see one of the SCCA regulars down there.

[Catch22]

I don't know where some of you guys get this stuff.

Chet is now about 1.5 seconds faster at Road Atlanta than he was in his 240. And 2:12s at VIR is just ungodly. The next nearest non-E36 is over 2 seconds behind that (RX7) and the fastest an Integra GSR has ever gone there is 4 seconds slower than that. These are fully prepped cars that are well driven, the only thing I personally ever use when making comparisons.

No other IT class has a single chassis that is this obviously dominant. Not even close.

[lateapex911]

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]

Bruce I will continue to discuss this in a manner that is as uncolored as I can, but you should know that you have really removed yourself from any semblence of a "reasonable" debater, as your bias, and disregard for others legitimate views has shown your interest to be entirely self centered.

What then is amazing, is that you are a person who has admitted to be self serving, but then you accuse others, on the ITAC, of that exact failure!! Why is it fine for you, but not for them??

THEN you say you want to be ON the ITAC! Am I the only person who see this obvious conflict??

The ITAC is made up of 9 members, selected, (key word, selected) for their involvement in IT, their geographic diversity, and their class diversity.
As such, the board remains rather unbiased, as one person would have a very difficult time forwarding any personal agendas.

I will let Darin fill you in on other aspects of the selection process, but I would assume that an ability to act in a non self serving manner would be important....

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 15 2005, 04:17 PM
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.

[snapback]60274[/snapback]

Again... you guys keep trying to work with track data, racing programs, and on-track performance...

Sorry, but that's completely missing the point... again...

The "average" car indicates you are considering prep level and on-track performance... THAT really has LITTLE to do with the ITACs position that the E36, like MANY other cars (Porches, Mazdas, Nissans, Toyotas, etc...), needs to be adjusted to correctly fit in this class within the performance envolope that the ITACs classificaion process has defined for the class. The E36 exceeds this envolope, based on this process, and backed by real data... In contrast, the 240Z fits the process, as does the RX-7... The 944 falls short, the 944S exceeds it slightly, most all of the Toyotas fall short... Many Nissans do as well... right there with them is the 1st get 13B RX-7... The list goes on...

This entire discussion, though it's disolved into another bitch session about the E36 drivers (E36 drivers vs. the World, or so it would seem), there really is no singling out of this one car... It just happens to be a prime example of a much larger problem...

THEORY:
Based on the MECHANICAL PARAMETERS of the car in question, in comparison to the MECHANICAL PARAMETERS of the other cars in the class, and specifically the "control" cars, the car is considerably under weight.

DATA:
This is said without regard to what we know about it's actual performance and real-world output figures... We "Know" what these cars really put out, as well as how the best examples really perform on the track...

I don't know how much more objective you want me to be... When your theory is backed up by validating evidence, it pretty much becomes fact... You'll notice (or maybe not), that I didn't mention the BMW ONCE in the above two paragraphs... That's because these statements can apply to ANY car in IT... There is no descrimination or bias... If the car doesn't fit, then we need to do something about it...

That's our plan...

[chuck baader]

Jeff, won't be able to make it....assembling motor.....again!

Scott...I believe Chet's record was a 1:40+++. He has gone slightly quicker, but not under 1:40!

Darin...Point taken...I think a lot of frustration setms from not knowing the parameters and being told we must blindly accept what is given to us by the ATAC. On paper, to me, the Z has a better hp/wt ratio and probably the 7, also. They are both 4-500 pounds lighter and should carry more corner speed yet the subject is how the e36 is outside the parameters. Chuck

[Doc Bro]

No other IT class has a single chassis that is this obviously dominant. Not even close.



I don't know about that one. I'm not sure if I've seen any e36 BMW's win in the races I've been to in the NER this year. A lot of seconds I'll agree....mostly 7's winning. I've also seen an enormous amouont of winning in the ITA Acura's, some have qualified faster than the ITS cars (7/4/05 LRP).FWIW
Rob

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 15 2005, 05:44 PM
... Based on the MECHANICAL PARAMETERS of the car in question, in comparison to the MECHANICAL PARAMETERS of the other cars in the class, and specifically the "control" cars, the car is considerably under weight. ...

I can't tell you how much I enjoy seeing this in print, representing a way of thinking for the ITAC that would have been completely impossible just a couple of years ago.

Hooray!

K

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 15 2005, 06:08 PM
Darin...Point taken...I think a lot of frustration setms from not knowing the parameters and being told we must blindly accept what is given to us by the ATAC. On paper, to me, the Z has a better hp/wt ratio and probably the 7, also. They are both 4-500 pounds lighter and should carry more corner speed yet the subject is how the e36 is outside the parameters. Chuck

[snapback]60285[/snapback]

May be, but the BMW is still fast. One thing I feel that is fairly inappropriate to calculate on is peak hp vs. weight. A Z and especially a wankel might make reasonable peak hp, but they'll never have the hp curve and more importantly, the torque curve of the BMW. Take a wankel at 200 rwhp vs. a 2.5L, 4 valve, variable valve timing, inline 6 at 200 rwhp in the same weight chassis and I'll put my money on the 2.5L, 4 valve, variable valve timing, inline 6.

Add about 200lbs to the inline 6 chassis or so and I'll bet they'd be close. Hey, didn't someone say that?

My Lightning truck only has around 380 rwhp and weighs over 4600lbs, but the torque curve of that motor makes it faster than what you'd calculate on peak hp. I think a little bit of what might be seen here with the comparisons of BMWs with RX7s and Zs is somewhat similar. Might be the board takes this into account, I'm just thinking out loud.

R

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 15 2005, 10:44 AM

THEORY:
Based on the MECHANICAL PARAMETERS of the car in question, in comparison to the MECHANICAL PARAMETERS of the other cars in the class, and specifically the "control" cars, the car is considerably under weight.

DATA:
This is said without regard to what we know about it's actual performance and real-world output figures... We "Know" what these cars really put out, as well as how the best examples really perform on the track...

Theory and data is all well and good, but what do you do when you don't have the data to back up the theory? In other words where do you get the data? Especially when there are few to none to prove that it's been over weighted? Doesn't development factor into the potential side of things? You say the e-36 is way under weight, well I say who's running one? I've asked in the BMW list who's running a e-36 and haven't recieved a responce from anyone other than two e-36/7's in NER. The problem in ITS is with one particular e-36, but what about the ITA e-36? Isn't part of the potential wrapped up with development? What if you can't find the .04 over pistons? The ARP rod bolts, head bolts. No one's doing the flow development on the head? (for port matching of course). Do you blase a new course and pay Bimmerworld/VAC to chart new territory, or do you just go with a reman stock motor? Will you even get Bimmerworld to do anything if they don't think you've got a snow ball's chance of making more than mid-pack?

On a side note, ask a spec miata driver what exacly is done to a Sunbelt/et. al. motor. They don't know, they don't want to know as long as it's all stock parts. Yet for some strange reason they can get more power out of them than any from the factory. Their not allowed expansion chaimbers, yet their exhaust has a strange section where it flares out into a larger tube. If you're in the top 10 you're running something like that out here, it's just the price of admission.

James

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 15 2005, 01:38 PM
Bruce I will continue to discuss this in a manner that is as uncolored as I can, but you should know that you have really removed yourself from any semblence of a "reasonable" debater, as your bias, and disregard for others legitimate views has shown your interest to be entirely self centered.

What then is amazing, is that you are a person who has admitted to be self serving, but then you accuse others, on the ITAC, of that exact failure!! Why is it fine for you, but not for them??

I have admitted a bias to this particular topic, other than that I’m a pretty objective guy. Do you have information to prove this is not the case? Too bad others can’t get their biases out in the open. To a truly objective person the bias of a lot of participants on this forum against the E36 and a few other items is quite obvious. I don’t particularly enjoy coming on here and defending the E36, but there is so much baloney being passed off as fact, I can’t sit back and let it go all the time. From time to time those spewing crap are going to get called on it.

THEN you say you want to be ON the ITAC! Am I the only person who see this obvious conflict??

That was a rhetorical question, no where did I say I wanted to be on the ITAC (although I may entertain the idea). I asked the question again because it had gone unanswered once previous in this thread. When certain myths are dispelled, tough questions are asked, or a post really hits home it tends to get ignored when it goes against the conventional wisdom of this forum.

The ITAC is made up of 9 members, selected, (key word, selected) for their involvement in IT, their geographic diversity, and their class diversity.
As such, the board remains rather unbiased, as one person would have a very difficult time forwarding any personal agendas.

And whom makes the selection? Do they have to be members of this forum? How many BMW drivers from the Southeast are on the committee at present?

Since a majority of ITAC members post on this forum it is easy to get the impression that all members are marching in lockstep. It would be nice to get the indication that there may be some differing opinions among the members.

I will let Darin fill you in on other aspects of the selection process, but I would assume that an ability to act in a non self serving manner would be important....

How did you get selected? [jk]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Sep 15 2005, 02:55 PM
I can't tell you how much I enjoy seeing this in print, representing a way of thinking for the ITAC that would have been completely impossible just a couple of years ago.

Hooray!

K

[snapback]60289[/snapback]

+1

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 15 2005, 07:13 PM
Theory and data is all well and good, but what do you do when you don't have the data to back up the theory? In other words where do you get the data?

[snapback]60291[/snapback]

Well... doing that is the trick now, isn't it... Basically, You do the best you can with what you have to work with... Then, when new data becomes available that warrents another look, you adjust if necessary... Hopefully, not too often, if ever, but the tools are there should they be needed (that was what we worked on last year...)

We aren't trying to make this perfect... You'd have to be able to KNOW or estimate the output potential to the nearest HP to do that, amongst other things... What we are trying to do is make the system BETTER, the process repeatable and fair, and make it so one can have a healthy discussion about classifications should questions arrise...

You ask me "why is this car classified at this weight"... If it's one we have worked with, I can tell you pretty much exactly how it came to be classified there...

We do consider torque, suspension, etc., but those are things that factor in AFTER the base weight is established... the "Adders" as Bill coined them... Those are subjective... they have to be, because we aren't the FIA and not working with F1 resources and engineers...

Again, it's not perfect, but we do feel that it is GOOD, and that's a hell of a lot better way than just guessing at a weight...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 15 2005, 07:20 PM
How many BMW drivers from the Southeast are on the committee at present?

[snapback]60292[/snapback]

And just WHAT difference do you think that would make??? There was a prominant BMW competitor ON the CRB when the ITAC recommended that the weight be corrected for the E36... It was his advice to the CRB that got the restrictor implemented instead... Where did THAT get us??? The ITAC was completely skeptical about whether or not this would work, and we remain so today... Apparently for good reason...

This is a VERY diverse group, and we discuss things in as much, and likely MORE detail than things are ever discussed here, so there are really NO recommendations that are made lightly...

In this case, Mr. Shafer, you are simply off base... The E36 has been an issue since it's initial classification, and it remains so today... It, and several other cars, need to be brought in-line with the performance parameters of the class if this classification process is to have any validity and if the recent classifications/adjustments are going to be valid as well...

[JeffYoung]

So if I am reading this right, a BMW driver on the CRB essentially was responsible for rejecting the ITAC recommendation that the BMW weight be corrected, and instead got the CRB to use the restrictor (which is as antithetical to IT philosophy)?

Interesting.

Like I said, I like the E36, want it out there. Let it make whatever power can be made out of 2.5 liters. But please correct the weight, which is just plain wrong.

[Bill Miller]

Since a majority of ITAC members post on this forum it is easy to get the impression that all members are marching in lockstep. It would be nice to get the indication that there may be some differing opinions among the members.

I don't think that's an accurate statement. You've got Darin, Andy, and Jake G. that post here regularly. George used to, but I haven't seen him in a while. Other than those 4, I can't remember ANY of the other ITAC members posting on a regular basis. Last I looked, 4 was not a majority out of 9.

[Catch22]

Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 15 2005, 06:08 PM
Scott...I believe Chet's record was a 1:40+++. He has gone slightly quicker, but not under 1:40!

I'm pretty sure he was in the mid 41s in the 240. I think E36s are the only S cars to ever be under 1:41 at Road Atlanta, and in July Chet ran a 1:40 flat.
And there are those that will tell you that he isn't even pushing the car because he doesn't have to. No one is challenging him.
Take the 2:12s at VIR for example. That was done when another E36 was also running times that insanely low. Before that, nobody had been under a 2:14.

My point is that I'm pretty sure there are several E36s out there than can go under 1:40 at Road Atlanta if you get them out there chasing each other, and thats too damned fast. No other chassis is managing to get under 1:41 regardless of the prep and the driver.


I don't know about that one. I'm not sure if I've seen any e36 BMW's win in the races I've been to in the NER this year. A lot of seconds I'll agree....mostly 7's winning. I've also seen an enormous amouont of winning in the ITA Acura's, some have qualified faster than the ITS cars

Maybe you guys don't have the best drivers in the E36 (yet)? Maybe Lime Rock Specifically favors the 7s? And your ITA guy in the Integra is pretty much a world beater, so alot of that is driver.

Just 2 years ago a CRX won ITA at the ARRC with several Integras chasing it. That car didn't run last year or it likely still would have been top 3.
ITA is still a pretty open class most days. If you have an Integra, CRX, Civic, 240sx, or a Miata you have a legit shot.
In ITS, at least in my part of the world, you need an E36 or fuggetaboutit.

[JeffYoung]

Scott makes a good point. I think we still haven't seen anywhere near what the E36 can do.

I watched (after I broke my motor during qual) Chet run away from very good RX7s and BMWs at SARRC MARRS at VIR in May. I also know that he strecthed out a 20 second (!) lead on one of the best prepped and driven RX7s in the SEDiv (one that ran neck and neck with Nick Leverone in March at VIR) and then throttled back, took it easy and I watched his lap times go up 3-4 seconds on the clock.

Put another fast BMW out there on his tail and NO one would have been within half a lap of him on a 4 mile course in a 30 minute race.

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 15 2005, 04:18 PM
I don't think that's an accurate statement. You've got Darin, Andy, and Jake G. that post here regularly. George used to, but I haven't seen him in a while. Other than those 4, I can't remember ANY of the other ITAC members posting on a regular basis. Last I looked, 4 was not a majority out of 9.

[snapback]60307[/snapback]

Didn't Chris Albin post on this forum? If not then I guess I'm busted! :figo:

[Catch22]

Looking over some past ITS Road Atlanta results I can't find ANY car with ANY driver under a 1:41 in ITS. Not even Chet in his old 240.

E36s only have breathed that air, and my money says they can go faster. If they can be 2 whole seconds faster than everyone else at VIR, then why not a very similar track like R.A.?
I'm betting, if the weather is good and the competition (like York) shows up, you'll see E36s in the 39s at this years ARRC. If one can run a 40 flat in July... well... 39s should be cake in November.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 15 2005, 07:44 PM
And just WHAT difference do you think that would make??? There was a prominant BMW competitor ON the CRB when the ITAC recommended that the weight be corrected for the E36... It was his advice to the CRB that got the restrictor implemented instead... Where did THAT get us??? The ITAC was completely skeptical about whether or not this would work, and we remain so today... Apparently for good reason...

Who is on the CRB? And what prominant competitor put down the recommendation from the ITAC? Seems to me there is a conflict of interest there for sure.

Ron