New Weight for E36 325 ITS?

[dj10]

Originally posted by snowmann@Oct 30 2005, 12:42 PM
I think its hillarious that people with half-prepped e36's are trying to say that this will affect them because of the guys that are at full prep. You picked the class, and then built/bought a car that wasn't built to the max level of prep. Now you are going to complain that you wont be competitive anymore? When did you ever win a race? when no one with a prepped car showed up? Honestly, if you aren't going to build a car that is to the full extent of the rules then why are you racing in that paticular class? The rules are designed to be equal at the same level... if you aren't going to the same level as allowed then how do you expect to be equal. If you are worried about the integrity, and future of IT, do you really want those people in the class in the first place?

[snapback]64021[/snapback]

You speak of max level prep. I don't mind anyone maxing out their car, just don't over to the dark side! The people that are using illegal cam timing, valve springs and bores, or what ever. Are these the cars that the ITAC or CRB are getting their numbers from? Some people will interpret to suite themselves knowing they are over the border line of being legal. Are these the people that will beat you? I don't know about you but I want to beat people because I drive better not because I cheat. I hope the ITAC & CRB have the legal data from Legal Cars.
dj

[snowmann]

Originally posted by dj10@Oct 30 2005, 06:19 PM
You speak of max level prep. I don't mind anyone maxing out their car, just don't over to the dark side! The people that are using illegal cam timing, valve springs and bores, or what ever. Are these the cars that the ITAC or CRB are getting their numbers from? Some people will interpret to suite themselves knowing they are over the border line of being legal. Are these the people that will beat you? I don't know about you but I want to beat people because I drive better not because I cheat. I hope the ITAC & CRB have the legal data from Legal Cars.
dj

[snapback]64026[/snapback]

yea thats what i was getting at, but also the fact that people are saying that the addition of a weight penalty would hurt there under prepped car more so. I beleive that a fully built rule abiding car should be dyno'ed and then they should go from there. However this is next to impossible, whos to say the competitor of a e36 wouldnt de-tune there vehicle prior to a dyno, or submit a previously de-tuned sheet. The car is clearly fast, too fast? thats why we have the big wigs i guess. I dont get what is wrong with the SCCA trying to promote close racing, and not schumacher style domination. There is a difference between driver skill and car level, ideally the driver of the e36 should be able to hop into an rx7 of equal prep and put down the same lap time right? (to a degree) Lets be honest here, how many people are actually going to give the SCCA the bird and straight up leave? and as i mentioned, do we really want that mentallity to represent the integrity of our class anyway?


I will laugh when the e36 guys in a couple of years are protesting the hell out of the new 'hot' car.

[Knestis]

I'll just put out there that anyone who knows of an illegal ITS 325, and hasn't protested it, may well be part of the problem.

K

[snowmann]

I like how are target range for power to weight is in the neighborhood of 15... however our car with a bmw advertised hp rating of 135, and a ITS weight of 2600 puts down a number not so close to that 15...



you do the math...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by snowmann@Oct 30 2005, 07:07 PM
I like how are target range for power to weight is in the neighborhood of 15... however our car with a bmw advertised hp rating of 135, and a ITS weight of 2600 puts down a number not so close to that 15...
you do the math...

[snapback]64044[/snapback]

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

[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

[Geo]

Originally posted by snowmann@Oct 30 2005, 06:07 PM
I like how are target range for power to weight is in the neighborhood of 15... however our car with a bmw advertised hp rating of 135, and a ITS weight of 2600 puts down a number not so close to that 15...
you do the math...

[snapback]64044[/snapback]

I won't speak to specifics, but I can tell you that 15 is just a number that was thrown out there as an example. Don't read anything into it.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by dj10@Oct 30 2005, 02:19 PM
You speak of max level prep. I don't mind anyone maxing out their car, just don't over to the dark side! The people that are using illegal cam timing, valve springs and bores, or what ever. Are these the cars that the ITAC or CRB are getting their numbers from? . I hope the ITAC & CRB have the legal data from Legal Cars.
dj

[snapback]64026[/snapback]

First.........(and yes, I personally know as well as anyone of the trials and tribulations of protesting,) it's up to us to police ourselves. If you know a guy who's suspicious, it's YOUR duty to take some form of action. Have a chat..talk to tech about checking the entire class or model of cars for the infraction you suspect, band together with other drivers and bring forward a group action, or just write the papers yourself. Whatever it is, just do something....or no complaining later..

Second, yes, the ITAC, and (I am sure) the CRB is well aware that the numbers considered must be represntative of full on, but completely legal efforts. This is a numbers game, and while there are lots of things that happen on the track that lead one to think one thing or another, it must remembered that seeing is not always worth believing.

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by dj10@Oct 30 2005, 06:19 PM
The people that are using illegal cam timing, valve springs and bores, or what ever. Are these the cars that the ITAC or CRB are getting their numbers from? Some people will interpret to suite themselves knowing they are over the border line of being legal. Are these the people that will beat you?

I notice that almost all the posts in this thread are from people on the east coast -- not even just east of the Rockies; east of the Mississippi. So I'm worried that they are.

My car dynos at the rear wheels for far less than the 225 number being thrown around. I'm not even sure my street E36 M3 makes that much power at the rear wheels! I can't imagine getting the car up to that level of performance -- not for club racing.

I'm at 2900 pounds with my fat ass and a half tank. If, in addition to the restrictor plate that suddenly appeared at the beginning of this season, I have to get the car up over 3000, I'm not even sure how I'd do it. Get a stock gas tank and fill it with lead?

My times are getting better. I had great racing this year; tenths of seconds between me and the 240 Z cars at PIR. The Integra whooped my butt at Mission.

I can't help but thinking that a bunch of cheaters back east are making the car look better than it is and causing other drivers to challenge the rule book instead of protesting the car itself.

I, for one, don't have "the data" that everyone thinks is so obvious. To me, that information would need to include what protests and inspections were done on the cars that are so obviously overdog. As far as the data I know about -- my own races, with other E36es, with Integras and 240Z's -- I can't imagine putting the extra weight into the car.

Why not take weight out of the other cars?

There should be little doubt that the E36 is a great car. It's being compared to cars that are actually 15 years older than it is, or using technology that's even older. ITS is not a vintage class -- it's for modern sports cars.

Maybe some of the rules should be updated to allow the more antiquated cars a better shot at development to meet current technology. For example, if I can reprogram my ECU -- what does a 240Z driver do?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 05:16 AM
I notice that almost all the posts in this thread are from people on the east coast -- not even just east of the Rockies; east of the Mississippi. So I'm worried that they are.

My car dynos at the rear wheels for far less than the 225 number being thrown around. I'm not even sure my street E36 M3 makes that much power at the rear wheels! I can't imagine getting the car up to that level of performance -- not for club racing.

I'm at 2900 pounds with my fat ass and a half tank. If, in addition to the restrictor plate that suddenly appeared at the beginning of this season, I have to get the car up over 3000, I'm not even sure how I'd do it. Get a stock gas tank and fill it with lead?

My times are getting better. I had great racing this year; tenths of seconds between me and the 240 Z cars at PIR. The Integra whooped my butt at Mission.

I can't help but thinking that a bunch of cheaters back east are making the car look better than it is and causing other drivers to challenge the rule book instead of protesting the car itself.

I, for one, don't have "the data" that everyone thinks is so obvious. To me, that information would need to include what protests and inspections were done on the cars that are so obviously overdog. As far as the data I know about -- my own races, with other E36es, with Integras and 240Z's -- I can't imagine putting the extra weight into the car.

Why not take weight out of the other cars?

There should be little doubt that the E36 is a great car. It's being compared to cars that are actually 15 years older than it is, or using technology that's even older. ITS is not a vintage class -- it's for modern sports cars.

Maybe some of the rules should be updated to allow the more antiquated cars a better shot at development to meet current technology. For example, if I can reprogram my ECU -- what does a 240Z driver do?

[snapback]64259[/snapback]

Don't worry about the 225hp that gets mentioned but never backed up. We see high numbers and we see low numbers. 195-210 are the core. A standard IT-prep improvement of 25% (which this car is VERY capable of - 236 CRANK HP) makes this car a 3050-3100lb car in ITS. Remember - this is WITHOUT the restrictor.

The math is simple, there is no witch hunt. This car is at the front of the pack and has never been run through the process. It is not unique in the fact it needs weight...ITA has some issues as well, which we hope to address. All we want is for all the cars to be based on the same process so we can defend the structure/classifications.



AB

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 12:19 PM
Don't worry about the 225hp that gets mentioned but never backed up. We see high numbers and we see low numbers. 195-210 are the core. A standard IT-prep improvement of 25% (which this car is VERY capable of - 236 CRANK HP) makes this car a 3050-3100lb car in ITS. Remember - this is WITHOUT the restrictor.

Hi, Andy.

Who is the "we" you're referring to?

I'm about ten percent shy of that "core number" at the wheels, what with my junkyard motor and club-racing budget. Where can I read more about this "standard IT-prep" you're talking about?

Thanks for your help!

[Knestis]

The rules have to be written such that parity results among makes/models built to the hilt - to the maximum allowed by the rules. I totally understand your philosophy - and share it, actually - but there's no way that weight specs can be established based on junkyard motors. I ran one of those for the last two years and accepted that I was not going to be allowed up front.

K

EDIT - ARRA was, I think, a typo of ARRC (American Road Racing Championships), arguably the premier gathering of IT cars in the country. It's kind of significant because they tear down the podium finishers even if there isn't a protest.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 05:17 PM
Hi, Andy.

Who is the "we" you're referring to?

I'm about ten percent shy of that "core number" at the wheels, what with my junkyard motor and club-racing budget. Where can I read more about this "standard IT-prep" you're talking about?

Thanks for your help!

[snapback]64312[/snapback]

Mike,
If I may... I think the "we" that is getting referred to is the Improved Touring Advisory Committee... or ITAC...

Since you are here in my region (NW and Oregon), you can feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions about what's going on... send me an e-mail if you are interested and I'll give you the contact info from there...

As for the output numbers for the BMW... to summarize what's been hased out here... The ITAC estimates the output for the E36 at around 235 to 240hp at the flywheel, or about 195-200 at the wheels... This is backed up with multiple dyno sheets sent to the CRB by E36 drivers, one that shows 195whp and the other that shows 205 whp (might have been 210... I'll have to go back and look)... There have been rumors that more is achievable, but there have also been rumors that these are using illegal cams, etc...

Either way, the IT classification process pretty much predicts the output that is validated on the dyno sheets...

NOW, knowing that you can't always trust dyno sheets, we still have multiple sources that indicate that they are making "a little less" than the 225 whp or so that is mentioned above, plus the actual data we have in the form of the dyno sheets mentioned, so we feel we have a pretty good handle on where this car is from a performance potential standpoint... Please note, that I made no mention of on-track performance, or results in any way... They are a secondary consideration... The primary focus is to get cars classified based on their specifications and performance potential... not based on how Joe-Blow did with model X at such-and-such a track... Too many variables in that to get an accurate assessment...

So, when we talk about making adjustments to the E36, or it needing adjustments, etc... this is the standpoint and basis from which we (the ITAC) are coming...

Look at the E46 (172hp stock) and other recently classified cars, and you'll see the trend... The push now is to get the existing classifications in line with this trend, which should give IT a baseline to build from in the future, and should prevent additional classifications from being "overdogs" or the new "flavor of the month" cars...

I need to get back to work but I hope this gives you and everyone else here paying attention a little more insight into this particuar issue... perhaps even to other classification questions as well...

Again, e-mail me if you'd like to talk in person: [email protected] and I'll send you my contact info...

Otherwise, keep asking and participating and we'll (Those ITAC members that are here...) will continue to try to keep you all informed...

Sincerly,

[BMWE46ITS]

Originally posted by Banzai240+Nov 2 2005, 02:22 PM-->

As for the output numbers for the BMW... to summarize what's been hased out here... The ITAC estimates the output for the E36 at around 235 to 240hp at the flywheel, or about 195-200 at the wheels... This is backed up with multiple dyno sheets sent to the CRB by E36 drivers, one that shows 195whp and the other that shows 205 whp (might have been 210... I'll have to go back and look)... There have been rumors that more is achievable, but there have also been rumors that these are using illegal cams, etc...

[snapback]64322[/snapback]

[/b]

Darin if you are going to throw out numbers PLEASE tell us what type of Dyno these #s are on.





<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 02:22 PM
Look at the E46 (172hp stock) and other recently classified cars, and you&#39;ll see the trend... The push now is to get the existing classifications in line with this trend, which should give IT a baseline to build from in the future, and should prevent additional classifications from being "overdogs" or the new "flavor of the month" cars...

[snapback]64322[/snapback]

1999 E-46 323i stock HP is 170 not 172 please make a note.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Nov 2 2005, 04:32 PM
Darin if you are going to throw out numbers PLEASE tell us what type of Dyno these #s are on.
1999 E-46 323i stock HP is 170 not 172 please make a note.

[snapback]64344[/snapback]

Hell hath no fury like a BMW driver scorned...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Nov 2 2005, 08:32 PM
Darin if you are going to throw out numbers PLEASE tell us what type of Dyno these #s are on.
1999 E-46 323i stock HP is 170 not 172 please make a note.

[snapback]64344[/snapback]

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):

E-Mail me if you still need to see the dyno results... I&#39;ll send you a copy... Minus Mr. Shafer&#39;s address and phone number!

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Banzai240+Nov 2 2005, 06:22 PM-->

Since you are here in my region (NW and Oregon), you can feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions about what&#39;s going on... send me an e-mail if you are interested and I&#39;ll give you the contact info from there...
[/b]

Thanks for the offer, Darin. My contact information is in my profile (or, at least, you&#39;re only a couple of clicks away from my contact information once you visit the web site in my profile). Let me know if you find that the email address isn&#39;t working.

I&#39;m not sure why you want to take the conversation private, though. I think I have already posted all of the questions I would initially ask you here.

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 06:22 PM
The ITAC estimates the output for the E36 at around 235 to 240hp at the flywheel, or about 195-200 at the wheels... This is backed up with multiple dyno sheets sent to the CRB by E36 drivers, one that shows 195whp and the other that shows 205 whp (might have been 210... I&#39;ll have to go back and look)... There have been rumors that more is achievable, but there have also been rumors that these are using illegal cams, etc...

I&#39;m a little confused. You mention two dyno sheets -- is that "multiple"? How do I submit my own dyno data?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 10:01 PM
I&#39;m not sure why you want to take the conversation private, though. I think I have already posted all of the questions I would initially ask you here.

Please don&#39;t misinterpret... I only offered because I can get the point across better in person than in type... I have also said everything I would say in person here... There is nothing to hide. I think we&#39;ve pretty much laid it out on the line here... I DO get tired of typing from time to time...

I&#39;m a little confused. You mention two dyno sheets -- is that "multiple"? How do I submit my own dyno data?

[snapback]64379[/snapback]

If you&#39;d like to submit your own dyno data, you are welcome to... Send it to Jeremy or John at SCCA Tech and to the CRB... [email protected] is the e-mail I believe. We would gladly accept another data point. Be sure, however, to qualify it by giving a detailed description of the level of prep, engine builder, etc., so we have a context to go by... Fully prepped means just that...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 01:17 PM
Hi, Andy.

Who is the "we" you&#39;re referring to?

I&#39;m about ten percent shy of that "core number" at the wheels, what with my junkyard motor and club-racing budget. Where can I read more about this "standard IT-prep" you&#39;re talking about?

Thanks for your help!

[snapback]64312[/snapback]

Darin said it above, the ITAC.

As far as "standard IT-prep"...check the ITCS under "Authorized Modifications"...

I can&#39;t state this enough...with a 25% increase over stock with IT-Prep (which is easily attainable in these cars - backed up by info provided by BMW owners), the car needs to weigh around 3100-3150 to be classed using the same parameters as the rest of the class. Fair? I don&#39;t see how anyone could think it wasn&#39;t. The same process, the same standards...

BTW: congrats on being within 10% of the number with little-to-no prep. :119: