New Weight for E36 325 ITS?

[snowmann]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 31 2005, 12:36 AM
All we can control right now is what is newly classified, re-classified or to use PCA's to try and return some class equity if there is an glaring error...IE: weight or an RP.

If you are talking about the E30 318is - how does ITA sound?

AB

[snapback]64046[/snapback]

I think that makes more sense then ITS dont you? I mean obviously ITA cars aren't far off of the ITS crowd but still that sucker is just an under-dog... And doesnt the z3 even run ITA? all other cars with this very same motor run ITA... this car somehow got thrown in ITS? doesnt make much sense... We race Midwest Council as well, There are a few ITA guys that will follow, if not lead the top ITS guys at BH farms...

Right now we are just having fun getting out there and running

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by snowmann@Oct 31 2005, 10:59 PM
I think that makes more sense then ITS dont you? I mean obviously ITA cars aren't far off of the ITS crowd but still that sucker is just an under-dog... And doesnt the z3 even run ITA? all other cars with this very same motor run ITA... this car somehow got thrown in ITS? doesnt make much sense... We race Midwest Council as well, There are a few ITA guys that will follow, if not lead the top ITS guys at BH farms...

Right now we are just having fun getting out there and running

[snapback]64150[/snapback]

IIRC, the 318is (1991) was recommended for a change to ITA. Darin can verify but if not, a letter would get the process rolling. Seems like a no-brainer. Betting it would be around SE-R/NX2000 weight.

AB

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 1 2005, 03:03 AM
IIRC, the 318is (1991) was recommended for a change to ITA. Darin can verify but if not, a letter would get the process rolling. Seems like a no-brainer. Betting it would be around SE-R/NX2000 weight.

AB

[snapback]64153[/snapback]

I'm pretty sure that we moved this one, at a weight similiar to the Z3... I'll see if I can find the exact date of the recommendation... NO one on the ITAC felt that this car belongs in ITS, if I recall correctly... (a thing that's a bit iffy these days! )

[snowmann]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 1 2005, 03:28 AM
I'm pretty sure that we moved this one, at a weight similiar to the Z3... I'll see if I can find the exact date of the recommendation... NO one on the ITAC felt that this car belongs in ITS, if I recall correctly... (a thing that's a bit iffy these days! )

[snapback]64155[/snapback]

Not to sound too bias'ed but the newer motors have a higher hp... they call it the m44... (whats in the 1.9 z3) so really seeing as how the z3 shares e30 chassis components id almost assume that the e30 should weigh as it does in ITS...2600

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by snowmann@Oct 31 2005, 09:03 PM
Not to sound too bias'ed but the newer motors have a higher hp... they call it the m44... (whats in the 1.9 z3) so really seeing as how the z3 shares e30 chassis components id almost assume that the e30 should weigh as it does in ITS...2600

[snapback]64158[/snapback]

I think all the people racing the M44 would agree that it doesn't have the potential that the earlier engines had. Try tuning the two piece intake manifold that's not allowed to be matched in the middle, seems like and instant power drain right there. Also from experience I can tell you it doesn't like WOT below 4k rpm but will bog down when excess throttle is applied. I think Noam said it best when switching from his Honda Civic, that he wasn't used to the lack of power from the M44. Or you could be in the e-36 318i which is at 2840 lbs or TEN pounds less that the ITS e-36 325

James

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 1 2005, 03:03 AM
IIRC, the 318is (1991) was recommended for a change to ITA. Darin can verify but if not, a letter would get the process rolling. Seems like a no-brainer. Betting it would be around SE-R/NX2000 weight.

AB

[snapback]64153[/snapback]

Even though I haven't been able to find it in my notes (I was looking in 2005, and apparently it's in 2004...), I checked with SCCA Tech and here is the response:

Darin,
This was in the 2004 recommended items:

Item 1. Based on recommendations from the IT Advisory Committee, the Club Racing Board is recommending that the 1990-91 BMW 318i/is be reclassified from ITS to ITA.



Regards,


John

I'll go back and look to see exactly when this was recommended, and what the recommended weight was... I think it should show up in the 2006 ITCS...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 1 2005, 05:14 PM
I'll go back and look to see exactly when this was recommended, and what the recommended weight was... I think it should show up in the 2006 ITCS...

[snapback]64187[/snapback]

OK, I just received a note from John concerning this. The 318i/is Twin-Cam 90-91 was recommended for reclassification from ITS to ITA at it's ITS weight of 2600lbs... That happened to be the correct weight, based on the IT classification process...

Hope this helps! (in more ways than one! )

Should be competitive now!

[snowmann]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 1 2005, 06:48 PM
OK, I just received a note from John concerning this. The 318i/is Twin-Cam 90-91 was recommended for reclassification from ITS to ITA at it's ITS weight of 2600lbs... That happened to be the correct weight, based on the IT classification process...

Hope this helps! (in more ways than one! )

Should be competitive now!

[snapback]64195[/snapback]

Is this going to be in affect in 06? Would like to get m. council in on this as well

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 1 2005, 02:48 PM
OK, I just received a note from John concerning this. The 318i/is Twin-Cam 90-91 was recommended for reclassification from ITS to ITA at it's ITS weight of 2600lbs... That happened to be the correct weight, based on the IT classification process...

Hope this helps! (in more ways than one! )

Should be competitive now!

[snapback]64195[/snapback]

Darin,

I just looked at an '02 GCR (just happened to be the one on the desk), and it's got the '92-'94 318 (E36) DOHC listed in ITA, at a weight of 2840#. It didn't say "318is", but all the specs look the same. Oddly enough, there were no valve sizes given for the ITS version or the ITA version. I'm not a BMW guy, so I don't know there is a difference between the '90-'91 cars, that are slated to move to ITA, and the '92-'94 cars. If the '92-'94 car is one of the ones that's part of the 'mass PCA adjustment', I'll just be quiet, and go back to reading my VW Bentley manual. :P

Mike,

The fact that some of those top E36 cars have survived ARRA post-race tech, notwithstanding, you might want to re-think your above comments. You are, in pretty much so many words, calling a LOT of folks cheaters. That's a pretty serious allegation, and something that shouldn't just be casually thrown around. I have no idea what the prep level of your car is, or who built it, but unless it's a 10/10ths effort, it's pretty disingenuous to hint that the top guys are cheating. And if you think that restrictor plate 'suddenly appeared' this year, you haven't been following this site much.

As far as how to get the weight up, you just add lead. The 100# max ballast rule has been lifted.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 2 2005, 06:35 AM
Darin,

I just looked at an '02 GCR (just happened to be the one on the desk), and it's got the '92-'94 318 (E36) DOHC listed in ITA, at a weight of 2840#. It didn't say "318is", but all the specs look the same. Oddly enough, there were no valve sizes given for the ITS version or the ITA version. I'm not a BMW guy, so I don't know there is a difference between the '90-'91 cars, that are slated to move to ITA, and the '92-'94 cars. If the '92-'94 car is one of the ones that's part of the 'mass PCA adjustment', I'll just be quiet, and go back to reading my VW Bentley manual. :P

[snapback]64264[/snapback]

Bill, the 90-91 318i is an E30. The 92-94 318i is the little E36 that looks like it was rear ended by a cement mixer (no trunk).

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 2 2005, 08:02 AM
Bill, the 90-91 318i is an E30. The 92-94 318i is the little E36 that looks like it was rear ended by a cement mixer (no trunk).

[snapback]64268[/snapback]

The hatchback was the 318ti of E36 vintage. The 318is that we are talking about as Geo said, is the E30 version. The E36 318i is a 4-door 4 cyl.

AB

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 2 2005, 11:35 AM
Mike,

The fact that some of those top E36 cars have survived ARRA post-race tech, notwithstanding, you might want to re-think your above comments. You are, in pretty much so many words, calling a LOT of folks cheaters. That's a pretty serious allegation, and something that shouldn't just be casually thrown around. I have no idea what the prep level of your car is, or who built it, but unless it's a 10/10ths effort, it's pretty disingenuous to hint that the top guys are cheating. And if you think that restrictor plate 'suddenly appeared' this year, you haven't been following this site much.

As far as how to get the weight up, you just add lead. The 100# max ballast rule has been lifted.

[snapback]64264[/snapback]

Hi, Bill.

What's ARRA? American Road Racing Association? Another back-east local org, aren't they? Why is their tech inspection relevant to a car's legality for SCCA ITS competition?

I would have hoped you had read my note as carefully as I had written it. I'm not calling a lot of folks cheaters; I'm suggesting that a few folks are runining outside the rules, knowing it or not, and upsetting the balance for the rest of us.

That is, I wonder if this problem is local to several of the regions back-east regions. Out here, there's no issue. I went back two years and I can't find any lap times for for a BMW in an SCCA ITS race in the Oregon region. I found a few BMW times for the Pacific Northwest region, but that car was unopposed in the races I found.

So as I mentioned, I'm not really sure the "data is obvious". If it's obvious, let's trot it out into the bright sunshine and see if it survives a peer review. Meanwhile, this comes off as ranting buy guys who haven't posted times in a while, people who are protecting business interests, and those who can't stand technological change.

To put a finer point on it, repeating "it's obvious!!1!" isn't helpful. Providing some discussion points and hard data would be.

Indeed, I don't follow this forum for rule changes; I read about them in the FastTrack, which made no mention of considering a restrictor plate for the E36 until it was announced as required in the January, 2005 issue. Prior to that, they'd solicited input once and discussed only weight changes. To me, that's sudden: I don't know whe I would have been able to offer input or response to the competition board.

That brings up one of my questions, though; who are the "we" and "us" that Darin keeps referring to? Am I really to trust this stale old website for official news about ITS rules in SCCA?

It's good to hear the ballast restriction has been lifted -- I guess it had to be done, if these adjustments really have to be made. The difference for me is 150 pounds; I'm sure it's more for other cars and drivers. If my calculations are right, 150 pounds of lead at a density of 11.3437 g/cm^3 has a volume of about 6 liters, or just less than a gallon and a half.

Even if I were to stipulate that the E36 is an overdog, I think undermining the car is the wrong idea. It seems to me that the older and less advanced cars in the class should be retired to a lesser class where they're more competitive. Any other proposal makes me wonder about the longevity of the solution. The problem is that the SCCA hasn't ever made good competition equality adjustments in these classes; it wasn't a part of the class charter until recently. The problem won't be fixed by overloading one of the more modern cars in the class.