New Weight for E36 325 ITS?

[Byron Smith]

I've been lurking here for a while and following the debate (others might call it something else) regarding the apparent "overdog" status of the E36 325 in ITS.

I gather from various threads that the December Fastrack will be revelatory in this matter, but inquiring minds want to plan now. As someone who is seriously contemplating building said car (for regional racing only for now), I'm curious as to what the group consensus might be on how much more weight said car might be carrying next year. Am I looking at 50, 100, 150.....

Sorta impacts on how one might strip/prepare the car for better weight distribution.

Byron Smith
1992 SM
Superformance Cobra MKIII
Utah Region

[Geo]

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 20 2005, 09:59 PM
As someone who is seriously contemplating building said car (for regional racing only for now)

[snapback]63124[/snapback]

Forever. IT is regional only racing. Period.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 21 2005, 02:59 AM
I've been lurking here for a while and following the debate (others might call it something else) regarding the apparent "overdog" status of the E36 325 in ITS.

I gather from various threads that the December Fastrack will be revelatory in this matter, but inquiring minds want to plan now.

[snapback]63124[/snapback]

The ITAC has a con-call on the 24th, then I will meet with the CRB on November 1st to discuss the plan...

I'm guessing that the CRB will want to post member notices on this stuff shortly there-after, and the BoD will make the final determination in December...

If the timing doesn't work out to get this plan implemented for 2006, then I'm not sure what happens after that... I did notice in the latest fastracks that there were several changes that seemed to be effective in the middle of the season... I'm hopeful that this won't be one of those...

Whether the BMW has to carry any additional weight next year at all has yet to be determined... It'll be up to the CRB as to whether or not they will accept our proposal... However, the car SHOULD weight at LEAST 3050-3100lbs to be correctly classified in ITS... And this weight is based on yet another letter that the CRB just received from a BMW racer who was kind enough to supply real HP figures for a typically prepared E36...

[Byron Smith]

"regional only...."

Duh. Knew that....just had a mistied neuron from reading all those acerbic SSB/C boards...

The question remains.

[Byron Smith]

So basically, this car should weigh stock weight to fit the formula.

3087 for 93-95, according to BWCCA.
3021 for 92, according to BWCCA.

Hard to believe that's going to happen.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 21 2005, 10:43 AM

Hard to believe that's going to happen.....

[snapback]63150[/snapback]

Why????


(there ARE, of course other options...a SIR could be required at the current weight, or a SIR and a new weight, or just a decreased opening in the current restrictor, or...........nothing. The CRB may decide to persue any of the five basic directions.)

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 21 2005, 10:43 AM
So basically, this car should weigh stock weight to fit the formula.

3087 for 93-95, according to BWCCA.
3021 for 92, according to BWCCA.

Hard to believe that's going to happen.

[snapback]63150[/snapback]

Why's that? There are cars out there that weigh over their stock weight (Rabbit GTI is the first one that jumps to mind, and that's by ~175#. Granted, that's w/ driver).

George,

Never say 'forever'.

[Catch22]

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 21 2005, 02:43 PM
Hard to believe that's going to happen.

[snapback]63150[/snapback]

An ITS Integra GSR with a full 8 point custom cage and fully gutted, with a 180lb driver, needs to have approximately 110lbs of ballast added. Give or take a few pounds.

My old '94 Integra had ALOT of cage (looked like monkey bars at the playground in there) and I weigh about 220lbs. Weight with me in it, 3/4 tank of gas and no ballast was 2620.
Last time I checked its minimum weight in ITS is 2690.

Whats so hard to believe?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 21 2005, 05:14 PM
Why????
(there ARE, of course other options...a SIR could be required at the current weight, or a SIR and a new weight, or just a decreased opening in the current restrictor, or...........nothing.

[snapback]63162[/snapback]

...OR... they could just declassify it...

Once again, I have to chuckle that people find this so hard to believe, when the E46 was just classified at 3000lbs... and makes quite a bit less stock hp... i.e.: should have a bit less potential...

This is one car where the "perception" of it being an overdog meets with reality on ALL FRONTS...

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 21 2005, 12:33 PM

George,

Never say 'forever'.

[snapback]63166[/snapback]

Ouch! You got me. Good call.

There's always hope of course.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 21 2005, 02:43 PM
3087 for 93-95, according to BWCCA.
3021 for 92, according to BWCCA.

[snapback]63150[/snapback]

Bryon, that is just about perfect - 3100lbs. And, there are many cars classed at curb weight. I've mentioned it before, but my JH is classed at about 55 lbs OVER its rolling curb weight with all optional accessories (interior electric light). I'll just add weight. So, definitely believable and on the right track.

R

[charrbq]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 21 2005, 09:33 PM
...OR... they could just declassify it...

Once again, I have to chuckle that people find this so hard to believe, when the E46 was just classified at 3000lbs... and makes quite a bit less stock hp... i.e.: should have a bit less potential...

This is one car where the "perception" of it being an overdog meets with reality on ALL FRONTS...

[snapback]63194[/snapback]

Wow! Can you imagine the impact that would have on so many BMW racers who have spent small fortunes building a fairly expensive car only to find out that they were so good at their homework that no one wanted to play with them anymore.

If you put this along side another thread that questions where have all the IT racers gone...can we formulate a possible, or at least potential, answer?

No one likes to develop a winning car only to see it penalized with weight, but we know that can happen as we asked for it to be included in the rules. But to be declassified for being too fast...that's a kick in the nether areas.

I'm sure NASA like to hear of such things. It gives them another class...BMW challenge?

[JeffYoung]

Chris, I think Darrin's post on declassifying was in jest. I've never head him advocate declassification EVEr for any car, old or new.

Almost all non-BMW ITS drivers who post here have said the same thing: we all want the car in the class. However, it is about 200 lbs too light vis a vis its potential horsepower and its stock curb weight. That's an error. So, yes, a lot of folks did some homework and built very fast BMWs. I don't think the 200 lbs will significantly slow the fastest of the fast, and the best driven of the bunch. But it will make it harder for the "average" BMW to finish near the front -- and that is the way it should be.

[Geo]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Oct 24 2005, 12:33 PM
Chris, I think Darrin's post on declassifying was in jest. I've never head him advocate declassification EVEr for any car, old or new.

Almost all non-BMW ITS drivers who post here have said the same thing: we all want the car in the class. However, it is about 200 lbs too light vis a vis its potential horsepower and its stock curb weight. That's an error. So, yes, a lot of folks did some homework and built very fast BMWs. I don't think the 200 lbs will significantly slow the fastest of the fast, and the best driven of the bunch. But it will make it harder for the "average" BMW to finish near the front -- and that is the way it should be.

[snapback]63369[/snapback]

Extremely well said Jeff.

I don't think the comment about declassification was in jest so much as saying something needs to be done and that's certainly an option. But as you said, I don't think anyone seriously advocates for this position. Too many other very viable options.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Geo@Oct 24 2005, 05:39 PM
I don't think the comment about declassification was in jest so much as saying something needs to be done and that's certainly an option. But as you said, I don't think anyone seriously advocates for this position. Too many other very viable options.

[snapback]63372[/snapback]

It was NOT in jest... it IS an option... But, George is right, I would never advocate (and have never advocated) it except in the extreme case that something else cannot be done to correct the issue...

What we've suggested is the solution that has the fewest questions about what impact it will have, and puts the car on the same field with the rest of the cars...

[charrbq]

I know it wasn't in jest, nor did I intend my comments to be taken that way. I interpreted it to be more of a threat to all those who bitched. No one wants to be declassified and no one says that the BMW's will be. But when that comment is thrown out, it makes the uninformed wonder. I only meant that if it was to happen, ( and I don't feel it will) it's the kind of stuff that drives people in mass to other sanctioning organizations to play...not that it will happen, either.

My response was sarcastic, but I took the comment seriously.

[Byron Smith]

Well, thanks guys for the input.

I think for now, I need to wait until the Fastrack comes out and evaluate the change.

For me, I'm concerned about driving such a heavy car if it is all done with weight. I would more inclined to build the E36 if the equalization could be accomplished with restrictors.

As a current (and continuing) SM 1.6 driver, I do appreciate the lower weight and how that translates into handling and corner speed. I'm looking for a second track car that will give a different (and enjoyable) track experience....I don't drive a Miata because I'm in love with the manufacturer. But I've owned a lot of Bimmers, appreciate the make and I thought it would be fun to have a BMW contender....

Maybe still.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 25 2005, 12:30 AM
Well, thanks guys for the input.

I think for now, I need to wait until the Fastrack comes out and evaluate the change.

For me, I'm concerned about driving such a heavy car if it is all done with weight. I would more inclined to build the E36 if the equalization could be accomplished with restrictors.

[snapback]63435[/snapback]

I think that is a very reasonable position. Also, you should voice your thoughts regarding additional weight vs. restrictors as an official letter to the ITAC.

[JeffYoung]

Byron, that is a very reasonable response. Thanks for being thoughtful about it.

Let me add this: I drive two 2600 lb ITS cars, and own 1/2 of 2 SMs. Fun cars, I love the SMs, mostly.

But, the extra hp and torque of the ITS cars, and yes the weight, makes for a very different driving experience. If you are comparing what 200 lbs will do to an SM versus what 200 lbs will do to a 220 hp 325 -- well, I just think the difference is far less on the 325.

Would love to have another 325 in ITS. I personally find driving my S cars to be more rewarding than the SMs.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Oct 25 2005, 04:30 AM
For me, I'm concerned about driving such a heavy car if it is all done with weight.

[snapback]63435[/snapback]

I look at it this way... I don't think that taking my buddy along for a ride would keep me from driving the car any harder... That's the kind of weight we are talking about...

I believe there is merrit in the idea of maybe combining the use of a restrictor and weight, or something like that... Maybe an SIR, if the CRB feels that the technology is reliable enough to do the job...

Either of these methods, however, can be hit and miss, based on the evaluation techniques we have available...

Equalizing by means of weight, given the information we have available (seemingly a lot more than on other cars...) is more of a sure thing...

We'd certainly like to do this only ONCE (or one more time...) and would like to get it right...