New Weight for E36 325 ITS?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 08:22 PM
(Heaven forbid someones girlfriend/wife is that size! )

[snapback]64432[/snapback]

Hey this is no way to talk about my mistress.....I take her out on test days for Ballast....

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Banzai240+Nov 3 2005, 03:22 AM-->

For the BMW, we are giving the car the benefit of the doubt... 25% is what several examples (yes, dyno sheets, etc..) have shown, but there are others sources that suggest the number is closer to 35%... No, we can't prove that these are legal, but then, that's not our job... It's YOURS... NO one seems to have the balls to do it, however... That's not really our problem...
[/b]

Not have the courage to file the protests, you mean? For competition, I'd agree with that being up to the involved drivers. I get the impression that it doesn't happen as often as it should.

But if you're using these numbers for a basis that's going to involve all cars everywhere, I wouldn't have thought you would want to get the data as clean as you could. Why wouldn't data cleansing for thier own purpose be up to the committe itself? If the basis your using isn't correct, then won't your complete product be off?

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 3 2005, 03:22 AM
You've missed a post somewhere, because I'm positive I've stated a couple of times that this is a PLAN... a STRATEGIC PLAN, if you will, for Improved Touring...

Hey! For once, it's not about me missing something. I'm responding to Andy there, who asserted that only one change was necessary.

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 3 2005, 03:22 AM
It involves a documented formal classification process, explanations of said process, justification and need for allowing class alignement adjustments, and a list of 38 or so cars that the ITAC has determined need to be adjusted in ITS through ITB (ITC was deemed to be close the way it was, so we could find little supporting data to justify altering anything with that class...)...

Sure; I'm aware that it's a process, and that adjusting the BMWs again is just one of the first visible steps. But, again, I'd love to read the documentation and explanations you've mentioned. Are they publicly availalbe?

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Nov 3 2005, 03:22 AM
As I&#39;ve said in this very thread... this is NOT an attack on the BMW... That&#39;s only one car on the list... The only reason we are talking about it today is because you guys keep bringing it up and we feel compelled to set the record straight and be honest with you guys about what we are doing and why...

And I appreciate that. (Even if you never call.)

My only gripe is that the process is so clumsy; do you really expect drivers who want to know what&#39;s going on to "read EVERYTHING" in the forums here? Read the history of the issue through every issue of FastTrack over the last couple of years? What&#39;s the painless way to gain insight into the process, and catch up to the progress so far?

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 3 2005, 03:22 AM
First off, this is where you need to go read your ITCS... We specifically had the ballast rules changed to accomodate this very thing... The legal area was extended to include the passenger seat area as well... an area that is PLENTY strong to hold 300 or so lbs,

I have; I&#39;m looking at the "2005 Edition", and in D.9.L it says that the position has to be aft of the firewall and fore of the passenger seat. Until four or five posts ago, when you said this was recently relaxed, I didn&#39;t think I had any other option. (Curiously, the reduced pullies are in this copy.)

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 3 2005, 03:22 AM
I hope this helps...

Absolutely! Thanks for answering my questions.

[Geo]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 11:24 PM
My only gripe is that the process is so clumsy; do you really expect drivers who want to know what&#39;s going on to "read EVERYTHING" in the forums here? Read the history of the issue through every issue of FastTrack over the last couple of years? What&#39;s the painless way to gain insight into the process, and catch up to the progress so far?

Mike, I&#39;m not sure how to respond to you. You say you want to know what is going on. But you don&#39;t want to go through the "pain" of reading up. What do you want? Do you really want or expect a personal tutoring session? That&#39;s not going to happen. We&#39;re all adults here. If knowing is valuable to you, you&#39;ll expend some time and energy on your own to learn. If it&#39;s not, don&#39;t expect people to spoon feed you. If you do at least some research on your own and ask decent questions based upon that research I&#39;ve always found this group eager and willing to help. Like many things in life, don&#39;t expect to get things just because you want them. It doesn&#39;t work that way.

Forgive me if this sounds condesending. It&#39;s not intended to be. It&#39;s just straight talk from my perspective.

Having said that, I&#39;m one of "them" (ITAC members). Indulge me for a moment because I want to share something I wrote (in brief here) on the ITAC&#39;s private message board today.....

When I joined the ITAC was wasn&#39;t sure about PCAs (performance compensation adjustments). I finally came to the conclusion that IT needed some changes because of the proliferation of spec and one-make classes that were springing up seemingly everywhere (and taking cars away from IT). Today not only are spec classes not popping up everywhere anymore, but more and more cars that would have been built for spec classes are being built for IT. A lot of the reason for this is the vision Darin has had for the category. It has taken some time but it&#39;s coming to fruition. Today many jaded veterans of IT racing are very pleased with the outlook for IT. Hang in there. The future is bright.

[JeffYoung]

Exactly George.

Question for the BMW guys:

Do you all think or feel that other ITS drivers don&#39;t want your cars in S? I for one do. I actually don&#39;t think the BMW is an unbeatable overdog, so long as it is classed at the correct weight. I&#39;d much prefer to have you guys running with us versus in J Prepared with BMWCCA.

I guess what I am saying is, from this non-ITAC, non-BMW ITS driver who has LOTS of development and driving improvement to do to get anywhere near the front, I want BMWs to set the bar, but I want them to do so under the same ground rules as everyone else.

Right now, I think you guys have to admit the car is classed too light for its potential. Why is it a witch hunt to fix that?

I have heard and seen the grumblings that the extra 200 lbs that should come will run some of you off. Well, taht sucks, I don&#39;t want you to leave. But remember this -- the LACK of that 200 lbs and the resulting uber-competitiveness of even average BMWs with new or newer drivers has driven off a lot of other ITS cars.

Ask the Z crowd how many SARRC and MARRS Zs have been parked because of the E36. Understand that people who have brand loyalty to 240sxs, and Integras and 190Es are not building these cars and doing other things BECAUSE it is so hard to reach the benchmark set by an average BMW.

In the long run, while you may disagree with the process and even what you perceive to be their motives, a leveling of the playing field so taht average BMWs DO NOT set track records is good for the health of the class. It will hopefully bring back those missing Z cars, and result in others looking at different cars to build and develop for S.

I will say that right now, continuing to develop my S car when I know I have a long way to go, a lot of time to invest and a lot of money to spend to even get to the level of a BMW with a stock exhaust is pretty depressing. But I am going to keep at it, in no small part because ITS v.2006 or 2007 is going to be a much more level playing field for everyone. I look forward to it. I wish you guys would too, because if things play out like I think the ITAC wants, we should have large, competitive ITS fields with lots of makes dicing for the win.

Hang around and see how it pans out.

[seckerich]

I just love "Seminar callers" who keep stroking for answers they already know!! Lets lead the horse to water---help him drink--hold his hand until he is happy--and tell him he gets a trophy even when his car is under prepped and cry he has to spend money in this big expensive sport like the rest of us. Buy the book-do your homework--and come back to school when you learn something. Spec whatever is calling you!!!
Steve Eckerich
ITS RX7 (Well developed)

[Joe Harlan]

Mike I have to ask. Have you ever run an SCCA race?

[its66]

[/QUOTE]"And who are they? Who appointed them? From what I&#39;ve read here so far, they come off like a bunch of vigilantes. What&#39;s their charter? How do I join? How many BMW drivers are in the ITAC?"

They are the guys who have taken the time to respond 10 times in one day to try to explain this. That hardly sounds like "a bunch of vigilantes". To me, it looks like three guys who have made some huge steps toward correcting some of the previous "sins" of some older classifications.

I know you have heard this several times already, but if you are running without a proper exhaust system, the right gearing (rear), good tires, great shocks, etc. You can&#39;t expect to run up front, period.

[quote]What&#39;s the plan for when the 924S guys start complaining, or the 1.8L Miata guys get angry? Bring the E36 to 3450 or so?

Everyone is already complaining about the e36&#39;s, except the e36&#39;s.

Dropping ten grand on a motor isn&#39;t "fun racing" in this regional class, for club racing. And that&#39;s why I think some over-prepared cars are upsetting the balance in certain regions, and an attempt to solve that problem nationally is ill-advised.

You are right, $10k engines aren&#39;t fun. But, fact is, there are many $40,000+ ITS cars scattered across the country. They might be Mazdas here, and BMW&#39;s up there, while it may be 944&#39;s over yonder, but htey are there, and we all have to race against them. Racing isn&#39;t cheap. Unless we adopted a "claimer" rule, this is always a possiblity. Somebody always has more money. The rules have to take that into consideration. They have to assume that since match porting, .040 over, + 1/2 point compression, ECU work,exhaust work are allowed, that racers will actually use these items to make their car faster. That is the type of factors that the 25% increase estimation comes from. As for the claimer rule...let&#39;s not go there. IIRC that was another 10 page rant a couple of years ago.

I thought it was absurd to introduce competition balancing to ITS in the first place; there are other balanced classes where its appropriate -- if someone feels they&#39;re not getting a fair shake, they should investigate those classes.

While I&#39;m not directly involved with any decison making, my understanding is that part of the reason for the "competition balancing" was to allow the CRB a method to correct clasification errors. Prior to which time, there was no system within the rules which allowed for a correction. This gave the Comp Board a tool to use.

This doesn&#39;t sound absurd to me.

[quote]if someone feels they&#39;re not getting a fair shake, they should investigate those classes.

But if almost everyone feels the BMW is classed wrong, then what do you do? Do you run off the entire non bmw field, or adjust the bmw? Now, the bmw feels he isn&#39;t getting a fair deal, mainly because the "original deal" was too good to be true. Understood, but it is something that needs to happen.

Before you write these three guys off as biased or vigilantes, remember that 3 years ago, you would not have gotten any feedback. (ask Kirk or Bill) These guys are trying to get things balanced. They are as open with us( the racers, constituents if you will) as seems possible. They have outlined-not detailed-the basics of a plan to try to fix many classification problems throughout Improved Touring(not just ITS). They have stated repeatedly that the e36 is not on this plan at this time. They want to continue to monitor that particular vehicle to fully assess the effects of the restrictor plate. (sounds fair-again)

Not to offend, but if you had presented a 100% car, and supported it with factual data about development, dyno time, shocks, custom gears, new hoosiers/goodyears every weekend, and the same development that is put into the front running Z cars and RX7&#39;s, your position might have been received more positively. Unfortunately, it appears that you are basically concerned with the performance of one car, not with the viability of the class as a whole. A 80%prepared X-mobile should not be able to check out on an equally well driven 100% Y-mobile. This is the type situation that they (ITAC) are trying to correct. Not just in ITS, but all classes.

Now, can the moderator ban any thread which mentions e36 or 325? Everytime they get mentioned, the damn black helicopters come back.

[its66]

Originally posted by seckerich@Nov 3 2005, 05:25 AM
I just love "Seminar callers" who keep stroking for answers they already know!! Lets lead the horse to water---help him drink--hold his hand until he is happy--and tell him he gets a trophy even when his car is under prepped and cry he has to spend money in this big expensive sport like the rest of us. Buy the book-do your homework--and come back to school when you learn something. Spec whatever is calling you!!!
Steve Eckerich
ITS RX7 (Well developed)

[snapback]64442[/snapback]

Agreed
I should have just let Steve sum it up. I would have saved alot of typing.

[lateapex911]

This is TOO f-ing funny!

So, all the BMW guys have NO problem bolting in a 250 pound human onto a 50+ pound seat...that all bolts to four seat mount bolts at every driver ed event from Bangor to San Diego, but actually using engineering to bolt some inanimate objects to the same area suddenly becomes a big safety concern???

yea yea yea, I know, a lead brick to my ribs is going to hurt more than big guy with a helmet flying around the interior in the event of an "OCE"... but lets not split hairs here.

pullleeeezzz..... think logically....if you can&#39;t figure out a solution, give it to someone (anyone, LOL) who can.

[Z3_GoCar]

Now, can the moderator ban any thread which mentions e36 or 325? Everytime they get mentioned, the damn black helicopters come back.

[snapback]64444[/snapback]

[/quote]

The Z3 is an e-36 but I don&#39;t see it geting the kind of press. I say form a Uber-class and put the sedan there with the 2.8l Z3, S-2K, Boxter, and any other car knocking on the 200hp door.

James

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Nov 2 2005, 11:11 PM
Now, can the moderator ban any thread which mentions e36 or 325? Everytime they get mentioned, the damn black helicopters come back.

[snapback]64444[/snapback]

The Z3 is an e-36 but I don&#39;t see it geting the kind of press. I say form a Uber-class and put the sedan there with the 2.8l Z3, S-2K, Boxter, and any other car knocking on the 200hp door.

James

[snapback]64447[/snapback]

Why do we need that. Those cars could come in with an SIR that woud limit the HP they could make.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 09:54 PM
Conversely, if I&#39;m starting to win after making mods, then why wouldn&#39;t I figure that I&#39;ve become equally prepared?

Conversely, you have shown a grasp of the written word, and displayed reasoning and intellegence...I am very sure you are aware the world does not end at your driveway.

The only way I could answer is to learn to estimate how much my mods make a difference -- in time, not even in HP,

[snapback]64419[/snapback]

if you are discussing engine mods, then the dyno, or simple acceleration curves are your best bet. Lap times will be influenced by too many other factors to be meaningful.

So, let me understand....clearly.

You have a "junkyard" engine, that has been serviced, (but not modded), a semi race chip, a cat back exhaust, some pullies and such, and you are keeping up with, and even winning races against what Joe Harlan and Darin say are well prepped to the nines Z cars??

That does NOT sound right....are you sure about your engine? Is there something you missed?

[cbuzzetti]

Links to CalClub (So-Cal SCCA) results and records.

http://www.calclub.com/html/headerpages/ro...ing/results.htm

Go to regional, select a date, see race results. These go back to 1/04

Same page has track records for 04-05

This page has results for San Francisco Region SCCA going back to 1995. Please look at most recent regioal race at Laguna Seca to see new track record set by E46 BMW. The E36 runs competitively with the RX7&#39;s.

http://www.sfrscca.org/Results/index.html

Here is the link for track records for SFR SCCA.

http://www.sfrscca.org/RoadRacing/Records/index.html

Just some data for the mix.

Charles Buzzetti
ITS Rx7 #78
CalClub SCCA

[cbuzzetti]

Here is the results from the race I was speaking of in the above post.
We had 7 ITS cars within one second of each other.
The E46 was 2 seconds faster than the next fastest ITS car.
The driver of the BMW is very capable as are the top 5 ITS drivers in this region.

http://www.sfrscca.org/Results/20051001/gr5.htm

The BMW did not run on Sunday. It was my understanding that this was the first outing for this car.

Charles Buzzetti
ITS Rx7 #78

[Byron Smith]

As the guy who started this thread, I just thought I would give you an update. My original thought was to prepare an BMW 325 (E36) for ITS.

I just bought a 95 BMW M3 that I intend to prepare for C Mod in BMWCCA, and maybe run occasionally in our local ITE garbage class. Four reasons. One, I already run a SM and intend to keep running it, and hopefully developing the car and my skills to run closer to the front. Plenty of competition there with a more even playing field and less (much less) bickering. Sure, the class may have problems unique to a spec class, but still, in the end, the cars are pretty close with the same driver skills.

Two, the speed difference between front running SM and ITS cars are just not that different. This obviously is only of concern to me and others in a similar situation.

Three, the difference in cost between developing a good ITS car and a (much) faster CMod car isn&#39;t all that significant. I&#39;m relating this to BMW of course since I haven&#39;t priced out other ITS cars.

Four, I&#39;m just not interested in putting my dollars and interest in building a car for a target that seems to be in great debate and uncertainty. And it doesn&#39;t look to end any time soon. Basically, there seems to be just too much acrimony here for me to develop much affinity with this group.

Maybe I&#39;m judging this unfairly, and I&#39;m sure I&#39;d probably get along great with most of you individually. But still, I&#39;m out.

See you on the track.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Byron Smith@Nov 3 2005, 03:55 AM
........ I&#39;m just not interested in putting my dollars and interest in building a car for a target that seems to be in great debate and uncertainty. And it doesn&#39;t look to end any time soon. Basically, there seems to be just too much acrimony here for me to develop much affinity with this group.

.... But still, I&#39;m out.

See you on the track.

[snapback]64453[/snapback]

So basically you are saying that either you:

Have no faith the car will be treated fairly and end up a front runner, (but not the ONLY front runner, empirically,) or..

You have no interest in racing the car when it&#39;s heads up with other makes.

[dickita15]

Mike I would like to to thank you for the improvement in your tone in the last 48 hours. I appreciate it.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by cbuzzetti@Nov 3 2005, 12:27 AM
Here is the results from the race I was speaking of in the above post.
We had 7 ITS cars within one second of each other.
The E46 was 2 seconds faster than the next fastest ITS car.
The driver of the BMW is very capable as are the top 5 ITS drivers in this region.

http://www.sfrscca.org/Results/20051001/gr5.htm

The BMW did not run on Sunday. It was my understanding that this was the first outing for this car.

Charles Buzzetti
ITS Rx7 #78

[snapback]64451[/snapback]

Charles, your example is probably the best example of why the car is an overdog.

John Norris probably has the best prepared and certainly the best driven BMW in the country. From all the results I have ever seen John is 2 to 4 secs quicker on any given track than any of the other ITS cars competing.
My expectation of how the system will fix this is. John will still likely win every race because of his ability and prep level but an equally prepped and driven car will have a shot at him. In no way are any of my comments meant to take anything away from Mr. Norris or his car. The E46 that you pointed out as a new car looks to have been prepped by yoes racing. I do not know the driver but I am sure the prep level out of that shop is top notch. I owuld expect to see that car get even better with a few races.


Byron, I really hope your kidding here. You have a chance to join one of the best racing classes in the country and build what will be a very competitive model under any plan. The E36 regardless more weight or a proper restrictor will still be the class of the field if it is prepped to a top level.

[Bill Miller]

You sound like a selfish, spoiled, man-child - the kind of stereotype on which the BMW logo penis enlargement pump was based.

Ok Kirk, you owe me a new keyboard and monitor, not to mention another cup of Starbucks!!!

Mike,

I really don&#39;t have the energy, nor the time, to address all of your issues (I guess it was a good thing that I made dinner at my g/f&#39;s last night, and didn&#39;t get to see this &#39;live&#39.

Unfortunately, Kirk&#39;s description seems to fit more and more, w/ each post you make. Let&#39;s see if I can hit a few of the high points though.

* Different weights for different prep levels

Not really what the SCCA is all about, and honestly, this is the first time I&#39;ve ever heard this concept floated. As Andy (at least I think it was Andy) said, if you want to run at the front, you better be prepared to bring your A-game. That means building a car to the limit of the rules. If that&#39;s more money than you want to spend, perhaps the SCCA isn&#39;t the place for you, or as some say OSB (Other Sports Beckon).

* Setting track records/winning w/ what is essentially a street car w/ a cage.

You sound like a somewhat intelligent guy. How do you not see an issue with this? And how can you possibly think that you&#39;re fully prepared, when you run a junkyard motor? And the way you learn how much of a difference your mods make is through this little thing called testing. You spend the money, make the change, and put the car on the track. You attempt to do it in a somewhat controlled environment, so you can isolate the impact of said change.

* Wanting SCCA rules to make it easier for you to run w/ another organization (in response to your comment about dropping the weight to make your next class)

See Kirk&#39;s comments about selfish and spoiled

I know there&#39;s much more, but I really need to get some work done.

BTW, anybody notice how none of the E36 folks have weighed in on Mike&#39;s comments? I wonder why that is? :P

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 04:43 PM
OK, 170hp is noted...

As for Dynos... I&#39;ll have to go look for the other sheet at home, but I&#39;ve posted this one previously, with the permission of the owner of the car in question (don&#39;t know the dyno type):

Darin, would you kindly take my address and phone number off of this post? I&#39;ve been having trouble with Michael Schumacher stalking me and I don&#39;t want to have the same problem with RX7 drivers.



Thanks.