New Weight for E36 325 ITS?

[lateapex911]

I am a big fan of utilizing the SIR, if it can be consistant.

It hits a lot of points.

1- There are lots of stories around about what the E36s are putting down, some guys are saying 215+, others are saying NO WAY! Well, with an SIR, we can spec the power. If a guy who says NO WAy has 195, and the spec power is decided to be set at 200, (just for instance), he wouldn't know he had a thing on his motor. But IF there ARE guys with over 215, they will be backed down to 195.

2- While the guys who have gone the extra mile to hit 215 (should they exist, legally) will be ticked that they have to back it down, such a device will save a lot the expense and trouble of hitting such lofty numbers.

3- Using a SIR avoids the need to add tons of weight to reel in the outliers...the guys with the big power, and that benefits everyone. We've heard complaints that carrying that much weight will make the car "unsafe", and while that is, to say the least, debateable, there is no denying that extra weight results in increased tire, brake and component wear.

4- Cheating is rather lame, but is especially unrewarding when combined with a SIR.
(Yes, building a big motor will help torque, but thats the guy who's gonna be a cheat no matter what.)

All in all, I think the use of a SIR, combined with weight, or used alone, is a win win solution.

[JeffYoung]

Jake, I see your point, but to me, the SIR is a HUGE slippery slope, especially if we are talking about spec'ing horsepower. To me that cuts against the very basis of what IT is about: here are reasonable specs for your car, go build the best you can under the rules.

A restrictor and essentially a mandated amount of power....not IT...very production.

Put 200 lbs on the car to correct the weight classification error and let them make their 225 rwhp. If they can do it legally, more power to them (so to speak!).

Jeff

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just for the record, 210whp is the max we have ever considerd when actually throwing around numbers. We have HEARD upwards toward 225 but have not seen any verification on those numbers.

Even at 205whp and a conservative conversion factor, the E36 should weigh over 3100 with NO restrictor. I see that as very resonable considering the E46 323 (at 172hp) comes in at 3000 with no complaints.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Not to throw fuel on the fire Andy, but how many E46 323s are being raced? Has anyone built one? Are they anywhere close the the E36 325 times? Maybe some of the BMW tuners can comment.

[BMWE46ITS]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 06:39 AM

Even at 205whp and a conservative conversion factor, the E36 should weigh over 3100 with NO restrictor. I see that as very resonable considering the E46 323 (at 172hp) comes in at 3000 with no complaints.

AB

[snapback]63588[/snapback]

Andy, I wouldn’t say no one is complaining about the E-46 power ratio to weight ratio. Jared Gaillard (numerous BMW ITS victory’s in the NE with both E-30 and E-36 BMWs) had the E-46 323i classified in ITS, but decided not build the car because he felt the car wouldn’t be competitive at the CRB specified weight. Since then Jared has decided not to run with SCCA because of politics involved. We will soon see how the E-46 car will run, but I do feel you will not see many of these cars in the future because of the cost involved in building / developing these cars. When we decided to build our two new E-46 ITS cars we contacted the CRB before we started our build trying to lower the weight, they said” they couldn’t lower the weight, till someone has run the car and we had real race results”. This sounds kind of different then the current “ results don’t matter” theory that I'm hearing now. On a side note: I’m really tired of hearing about stated H.P. numbers on this board, if you know anything about chassis dyno’s you know how much results can vary. They should only be used as a tuning aid and not as end all source for correct numbers.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Oct 26 2005, 11:49 AM
Andy, I wouldn’t say no one is complaining about the E-46 power ratio to weight ratio. Jared Gaillard (numerous BMW ITS victory’s in the NE with both E-30 and E-36 BMWs) had the E-46 323i classified in ITS, but decided not build the car because he felt the car wouldn’t be competitive at the CRB specified weight. Since then Jared has decided not to run with SCCA because of politics involved. We will soon see how the E-46 car will run, but I do feel you will not see many of these cars in the future because of the cost involved in building / developing these cars. When we decided to build our two new E-46 ITS cars we contacted the CRB before we started our build trying to lower the weight, they said” they couldn’t lower the weight, till someone has run the car and we had real race results”. This sounds kind of different then the current “ results don’t matter” theory that I'm hearing now. On a side note: I’m really tired of hearing about stated H.P. numbers on this board, if you know anything about chassis dyno’s you know how much results can vary. They should only be used as a tuning aid and not as end all source for correct numbers.

[snapback]63635[/snapback]

All good points Jeff.

I have no idea what 'politics' Jared could be sour about. Would love to hear them so I can get into Black Helicopter mode...

I agree you won't see many because of the costs involved. That's life...I don't think you would have seen so many E36's if they were classed properly in the beginning either. If the E46 has no ADVANTAGE, an 'average' amount of them with show up, given the costs and ease of build - which you guys - as excellent BMW drivers have proven, is a tough proposition.

The CRB won't lower the weight until they see some evidence that it was mis-classed. Right now, it fits the process perfectly.

As far as HP numbers, they are just supporting data. Data at this point that supports race results, process figures, etc. Like I have stated before, if you put this car into the process CONSERVATIVELY, it would have to weigh 3100ish lbs. (That is using 235ish crank hp and/or 200ish wheel hp), which is seemingly on the low side of a 10/10th example.

For reference, the RX-7 is within 3 lbs of it's target should we class it today.

AB

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS+Oct 26 2005, 03:49 PM-->

Jared Gaillard (numerous BMW ITS victory’s in the NE with both E-30 and E-36 BMWs) had the E-46 323i classified in ITS, but decided not build the car because he felt the car wouldn’t be competitive at the CRB specified weight. [/b]

Well, he's right... It won't be competitive... against the E36.... Otherwise, it's classified right on the money...


<!--QuoteBegin-BMWE46ITS@Oct 26 2005, 03:49 PM
On a side note: I’m really tired of hearing about stated H.P. numbers on this board, if you know anything about chassis dyno’s you know how much results can vary. They should only be used as a tuning aid and not as end all source for correct numbers.

[snapback]63635[/snapback]

I find this a particularly interesting comment, since the numbers that we have been stating were sent to us by BMW owners trying to prevent any further restrictions on this car...

Making the assumption that dyno results may vary, we have two letters, sent to the CRB by BMW owners, that show results of 190whp (with restrictor) and 205whp (I believe this is without the restrictor)... Maybe you take them to a different dyno and they both will read 197.5whp... or, maybe you take them to a different dyno and they will read 195 and 210 respectively... OR, maybe you take them to another dyno and they read 185 and 200...

Either way, you have a case that pretty clearly shows the cars potential, and you can compare that to the process for classification and see that it&#39;s underclassified... It&#39;s potential was underestimated... Has nothing to do with results... they just provide further evidence toward this...

[vodomagoo]

i think its foolish to add weight just because some bmw engine builders are able to squeeze that last bit out, how many and 240&#39;s rx7&#39;s are running motec and have the development dollars that the bmw&#39;s do in the engines? To be fair youd have to build a no cost barred engine for each platform and dyno them, I see adding weight due to 1 or 2 big spenders is backwards logic. Also every single dyno reads differently. Comparing dyno sheets from different days on different dynos, well there are way to many variables involved, weather calibration ect... this is all a big slipery slope. I was hoping to build a e36 its car in a year but i&#39;m now very strongly reconsidering it

[BMWE46ITS]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Oct 26 2005, 12:31 PM-->

All good points Jeff.

I have no idea what &#39;politics&#39; Jared could be sour about. Would love to hear them so I can get into Black Helicopter mode...

AB

[snapback]63646[/snapback]

[/b]

I can’t speak for Jared, but I understood it to be he got really frustrated with the process of classify the car and how they added additional weight to the car even thought stock power was less then the E-36 cars.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 12:31 PM
All good points Jeff.

I agree you won&#39;t see many because of the costs involved. That&#39;s life...I don&#39;t think you would have seen so many E36&#39;s if they were classed properly in the beginning either. If the E46 has no ADVANTAGE, an &#39;average&#39; amount of them with show up, given the costs and ease of build - which you guys - as excellent BMW drivers have proven, is a tough proposition.

[snapback]63646[/snapback]

So what are you saying you don’t’ want to see a lot of cars showing up?? What is wrong with a lot of E-36s showing up, I remember in the late 90s about 15 to 20 RX7s per race compared to about 2 BMWs.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 12:31 PM
All good points Jeff.


The CRB won&#39;t lower the weight until they see some evidence that it was mis-classed. Right now, it fits the process perfectly.

[snapback]63646[/snapback]

I agree or I would have chosen another class to run in.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 12:31 PM
All good points Jeff.

As far as HP numbers, they are just supporting data. Data at this point that supports race results, process figures, etc. Like I have stated before, if you put this car into the process CONSERVATIVELY, it would have to weigh 3100ish lbs. (That is using 235ish crank hp and/or 200ish wheel hp), which is seemingly on the low side of a 10/10th example.

[snapback]63646[/snapback]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter, or in your spare time please do some more research on dyno #s.

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 12:31 PM
All good points Jeff.

For reference, the RX-7 is within 3 lbs of it&#39;s target should we class it today.

[snapback]63646[/snapback]

Andy we all know you know many other factors are involved when you are classifying race cars ala: great brakes, suspension geometry, weight distribution. In some ITS cars you are even comparing 2 seater “sports cars” to 4 door family sedans.

AB

[BMWE46ITS]

Originally posted by Banzai240+Oct 26 2005, 12:34 PM-->

Well, he&#39;s right... It won&#39;t be competitive... against the E36.... Otherwise, it&#39;s classified right on the money...
I find this a particularly interesting comment, since the numbers that we have been stating were sent to us by BMW owners trying to prevent any further restrictions on this car...

Making the assumption that dyno results may vary, we have two letters, sent to the CRB by BMW owners, that show results of 190whp (with restrictor) and 205whp (I believe this is without the restrictor)... Maybe you take them to a different dyno and they both will read 197.5whp... or, maybe you take them to a different dyno and they will read 195 and 210 respectively... OR, maybe you take them to another dyno and they read 185 and 200...

Either way, you have a case that pretty clearly shows the cars potential, and you can compare that to the process for classification and see that it&#39;s underclassified... It&#39;s potential was underestimated... Has nothing to do with results... they just provide further evidence toward this...

[snapback]63647[/snapback]

[/b]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 26 2005, 12:34 PM
Well, he&#39;s right... It won&#39;t be competitive... against the E36.... Otherwise, it&#39;s classified right on the money...

[snapback]63647[/snapback]

The car will be completive or I wouldn’t have spent a year building two of them. I also feel any top team with good drivers can build and run up front with any car with enough development and money.

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Oct 26 2005, 12:34 PM
Either way, you have a case that pretty clearly shows the cars potential, and you can compare that to the process for classification and see that it&#39;s underclassified... It&#39;s potential was underestimated... Has nothing to do with results... they just provide further evidence toward this...

[snapback]63647[/snapback]

How can it have nothing to do with results??? That’s what racing is???

Darin I know you don’t race out here, but here in the North East, our 2004 ITS season was amazing, and the championship came down to one point. I said after the last race we will never have as close of a season as we did that year, between the BMWs and the Mazda’s. Will see what happens in 06, but 05 around here was Mazda walk away.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by vodomagoo@Oct 26 2005, 05:10 PM
i think its foolish to add weight just because some bmw engine builders are able to squeeze that last bit out, how many and 240&#39;s rx7&#39;s are running motec and have the development dollars that the bmw&#39;s do in the engines? To be fair youd have to build a no cost barred engine for each platform and dyno them, I see adding weight due to 1 or 2 big spenders is backwards logic.

[snapback]63655[/snapback]

HUH??? Do we NOT have a responsibility to classify cars based on their true potential?? I think you are WAY off base here...

The point is to classify cars based on what the best of the best could do with them... After that, it&#39;s up to you... You don&#39;t REALLY expect us to classify cars based on the "average Joe" do you???

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by vodomagoo@Oct 26 2005, 01:10 PM
i think its foolish to add weight just because some bmw engine builders are able to squeeze that last bit out, how many and 240&#39;s rx7&#39;s are running motec and have the development dollars that the bmw&#39;s do in the engines?

ALL cars need to be classed to hit a "target" if you will. Part of the process is deterining what the full potential of the car is. We could aim for a 90% effort as long as it applied to every car.....but using 100% is just as fair, as long as all cars are treated equally. Thats the ITACs goal.

I was hoping to build a e36 its car in a year but i&#39;m now very strongly reconsidering it

[snapback]63655[/snapback]

But why???

A- Because you were wanting to race the car everyone considers an overdog, and are worried it will cease to be?
B- You prefer not to race heads up?
C- You feel the ITAC will make the BMW a second rate car??

[BMWE46ITS]

Originally posted by vodomagoo@Oct 26 2005, 01:10 PM
i think its foolish to add weight just because some bmw engine builders are able to squeeze that last bit out, how many and 240&#39;s rx7&#39;s are running motec and have the development dollars that the bmw&#39;s do in the engines? To be fair youd have to build a no cost barred engine for each platform and dyno them, I see adding weight due to 1 or 2 big spenders is backwards logic. Also every single dyno reads differently. Comparing dyno sheets from different days on different dynos, well there are way to many variables involved, weather calibration ect... this is all a big slipery slope. I was hoping to build a e36 its car in a year but i&#39;m now very strongly reconsidering it

[snapback]63655[/snapback]

I agree 100% So if Speedsource kept running ITS they wouldn&#39;t have developed the RX7 to be faster in the last 4 years PLEASE!!!

They were faster in 01 when they ran them, then the current top Rx7s.

I also agree with you, the dyno results thing is a big slipery slope and a waste of time on this board YOU CAN"T COMPARE number.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by vodomagoo@Oct 26 2005, 01:10 PM
i think its foolish to add weight just because some bmw engine builders are able to squeeze that last bit out, how many and 240&#39;s rx7&#39;s are running motec and have the development dollars that the bmw&#39;s do in the engines? To be fair youd have to build a no cost barred engine for each platform and dyno them, I see adding weight due to 1 or 2 big spenders is backwards logic. Also every single dyno reads differently. Comparing dyno sheets from different days on different dynos, well there are way to many variables involved, weather calibration ect... this is all a big slipery slope. I was hoping to build a e36 its car in a year but i&#39;m now very strongly reconsidering it

[snapback]63655[/snapback]

If you think there are no cost-no-object RX-7&#39;s out there, you are kidding yourself.

We hope to go faster than any RX-7 has at RA ever - this year given it will be only Nick&#39;s 3rd time at the track. May the weather God&#39;s be with us.

It isn&#39;t about handicapping the big spenders, it&#39;s about putting everyone on a level playing field given the true potential of a specific make and model - SHOULD someone go all out. Would you rather be &#39;out-spent&#39; with the POTENTIAL to be in the game with more money - or would you rather be &#39;out-classed&#39; with no potential to be in the mix?

Jeff - 2005 in NE is so not a valid data point. No top Bimmers were there and you know it - why? Because you guys didn&#39;t show.

AB

[robits325is]

Originally posted by lateapex911+Oct 26 2005, 01:56 PM-->

A- Because you were wanting to race the car everyone considers an overdog, and are worried it will cease to be?

[snapback]63665[/snapback]

[/b]

I don&#39;t think the BMW is an overdog - its the same as any other front running car - thats why people build them. Some fast drivers built some fast cars.

Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 26 2005, 01:56 PM

B- You prefer not to race heads up?

[snapback]63665[/snapback]

What a dumb comment - who wants to drive around by themselves (Do you think Nick had a fun year in 2005?)

<!--QuoteBegin-lateapex911@Oct 26 2005, 01:56 PM
C- You feel the ITAC will make the BMW a second rate car??

[snapback]63665[/snapback]

Seems to be the direction - The trend of ITS BMWs being converted to race BMW CCA JP will continue in greater numbers than we&#39;ve already seen in 2005.

[vodomagoo]

I was mainly going to build a e36 its car since im a bmw guy, right now i have a e30 with a s50 in it and im gonna race cmod next year possibly with it in bmwcca but wanted to race an its car for the close compotition. I think that in the scca this is the only way im ever gonna get to run a bmw and have a shot at ever winning. But why spend the money on it if its just gonna keep getting restrictions added to it when ever it does good. I think the reason why bmw engines are ahead of the rest is due to involvement in pro racing and learning alot from that, I know if i do build one I wont be spending the money on the motec but still wana be somewhat competitive.

[JeffYoung]

[Vodo, please trust me when I say this. If you build a 325 to the max of the rules, even at 3050 (which I think is its JP race weight, correct?), you will have one of the three best ITS cars available (along with the RX7 and the 240z). If you have the driving ability, you will win.

The guys who claim they won&#39;t build an ITS 325 or will go to BMWCCA and race against 3 other guys in their class because of 200lbs -- to me that&#39;s silly. It is true that the ITAC is going to make it harder for average BMWs to run up front. And it should be that way. It is not true that 200 lbs is going to stop Ed York, Chet Wittel and others from winning, a lot, with 10/10 BMWs.

Someone above said that with the right driver and a fully prepped car, almost any car can be competitive. I think that is 100% spot on. The goal of race car rule writing, to me anyway, should be to preserve that philosophy and prevent underdeveloped, average-driven cars from winning.

[BMWE46ITS]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Oct 26 2005, 02:29 PM-->

If you think there are no cost-no-object RX-7&#39;s out there, you are kidding yourself.

[snapback]63670[/snapback]

[/b]

So if you brought your top Flatout Motorsport car (Nicks) to Speedsource and dropped it off with a check for $15K you really don’t think the car would be any faster. I’m sure my cars would be faster if I did the same at PTG.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 02:29 PM
We hope to go faster than any RX-7 has at RA ever - this year given it will be only Nick&#39;s 3rd time at the track. May the weather God&#39;s be with us.

[snapback]63670[/snapback]

I wish Nick and you guys the best, I know if your motor is fresh he will put on a good show, just look at how much faster his car got this year when you finally put some decent shocks in the car.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 02:29 PM
It isn&#39;t about handicapping the big spenders, it&#39;s about putting everyone on a level playing field given the true potential of a specific make and model - SHOULD someone go all out. Would you rather be &#39;out-spent&#39; with the POTENTIAL to be in the game with more money - or would you rather be &#39;out-classed&#39; with no potential to be in the mix?

[snapback]63670[/snapback]

How was 2004 year not a level playing field? Best racing we will see for awhile in the NE.


<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 02:29 PM
Jeff - 2005 in NE is so not a valid data point. No top Bimmers were there and you know it - why? Because you guys didn&#39;t show.

[snapback]63670[/snapback]

I agree, I wish we didn’t have all this restrictor plate BS and we could have run our car another year.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Oct 26 2005, 03:46 PM
So if you brought your top Flatout Motorsport car (Nicks) to Speedsource and dropped it off with a check for $15K you really don’t think the car would be any faster. I’m sure my cars would be faster if I did the same at PTG.

Nope. Been there, done that. Went to Speedsource before the 2004 ARRC...why? You have to have the best of the best to run at the ARRC.

I wish Nick and you guys the best, I know if your motor is fresh he will put on a good show, just look at how much faster his car got this year when you finally put some decent shocks in the car.

Faster at some tracks, not as fast as others.

How was 2004 year not a level playing field? Best racing we will see for awhile in the NE.

Just because the results showed close racing doesn&#39;t erase the fact that you guys could do it with less than &#39;optimal&#39; power.

I agree, I wish we didn’t have all this restrictor plate BS and we could have run our car another year.

[snapback]63684[/snapback]

Haven&#39;t heard one non-BMW driver call it BS. Taking away an unfair advantage is what most call it.

AB

[Knestis]

It&#39;s just little ol&#39; me but any time someone threatens to take their toys to another sandbox when their competitive advantage is threatened in Club Racing, I confess that my initial reaction is "Have fun, dude!" If 200 pounds (something like a 6% increase?) is all it takes to chase someone away, they weren&#39;t particularly committed in the first place.

Comparing cars at the pointy end of a grid with others in the same place, how much did maximum rewards ballast slow down the top SPEED Touring guys? Enough to make poles and wins harder but not enough to relegate them to backmarker status in a tight field. Certainly not enough to keep them at home.

It&#39;s a hard thing that the ITAC is trying to do and - again - I applaud them for doing so. Hitting the sweet spot with a new listing is going to be TOUGH but I&#39;d argue that a lack of people tripping over one-another to build something shoudl be taken as evidence that at least they haven&#39;t erred in the direction of creating an overdog. That&#39;s half of getting it right on.

K