New Weight for E36 325 ITS?

[Knestis]

I tried earlier to point out a couple of things to help you (Mike) but I haven't seen any evidence that you took them to heart - or even bothered reading them. The guys from the ITAC, while they post here out of the kindness of their hearts, act in an official capacity for the club so they kind of have to be nice, so I'll try again...

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

You want the national rules set for SCCA to be tailored so that you can be competitive with a car that you admit has a junkyard motor, and you run a stock manifold rather than a header so you can run Conference - rather than build to (or even KNOW) the rules that you are complaining about.

You show up and in one day, without even reading all of the posts in the strand that you are peeing all over, decide that people who have been involved in IT for years - for decades, in some cases - don't have the faintest idea of what they are talking about.

You had a lap record at Spokane for a day or so?! I still have a record at the Olympia Airport circuit - both configurations, in fact - and nobody gives a damn.

Congrats, dude.

You now have zero credibility here. You don't even have a right to bitch, so far as I can tell.

Kirk (who moved away from Bellevue and left a teaching job in Lake Washington School District because of people like you)

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by dickita15@Nov 2 2005, 11:22 PM
respectfully with honest questions. I think not. Mike I am sorry but you have come off as a hot head with little knowledge of the facts. sorry guy but you need to take a step back a see a liitle more of the picture. By the way Darin nicely offered to talk to you personelly and you insist he call you. get over yourself.

Er, I just told Darin how he could find my contact information so he could follow through on his offer to get in touch with me. What's wrong with that? If he's more comfortable chatting about it than writing about it, that's fine by me -- I'm all ears either way.

Indeed, I do have little knowledge of the facts. I haven't been racing for very long, and don't run a racing-oriented business. While my friends and competitors have helped me learn a lot over the last few years, I'm still far more of a driver than a wrench.

And so, I'm here asking about the facts: do we really know the legitimacy of the cars that seem to be overpowered? How does the adivsory committee work? Where can I read their work product? How can I participate, even if it's only to provide my data points? How was it determined that this problem isn't a local issue that could be corrected by the stewards, instead of a national issue with a very wide-spread rule change? If the rule change really does have to happen, who determines how it works? How was the restrictor plate size chosen, for instance? Or the exact weights determined? Why wasn't a graduated system put in place, to make competition equality between preparation levels instead of across models? Why adjust the E36 cars weight up instead of adjust other cars down, or give them other compensation? How will cars newer and faster than the E36 rigs be handled -- is just thowing weight and plates at the problem the right answer for the long term, or should there be new classes, or other mechanisms for equalizing the field of entrants? What about cars that aren't still equalized to the E36? Will even more weight be added?

And so on. If you think you can help me learn something, by all means -- please do!

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 05:40 PM
I think you might have misunderstood; I'm 10% under the stock numbers at the rear wheel, not 10% under the 225 horsepower number you've mentioned.

[snapback]64368[/snapback]

I ran last year 15% under stock HP. What's your point? Kwicher whinen.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 05:01 PM
Hi, Joe!

Thanks for the advice. While I've bought the GCR books in the past, I have found it far more convenient (and cheaper!) to just download the rules from the SCCA website.

I've not "screamed about getting boned" by any stretch. Indeed, before I do, I'm trying to figure out how these rule changes happen, and what justification there is for them. What's being proposed doesn't seem appropriate to me, sure; but before I raise a stink about it, I'm making an effort to figure out how those numbers come about. I'm not beyond being convinced that they're they right thing to do.

I'd very much like to see the data that's going into this process, as well as good documentation for the process itself. I've asked for that information here.

Otherwise, no matter what the committee does, it will strike all the drivers involved as something that was just thrown over the wall. After all, if we can come to understand how the process works, it'll be a lot easier to accept that the process is working and that the recommendation of the committee is well-reasoned.

Wouldn't you agree?

I ran the car up at the dyno shop in Kirkland, in the Totem Lake area. And I just can't think of the name right now. Is it Carb Connection?
The engine was built by BMW. Seriously; it's a junk yard motor. Strictly BMW went through the heads (which they send to a machine shop, also in Kirkland). But that's it.

[snapback]64400[/snapback]

You kidding right? You come here quoting Dyno numbers and you can't name the dyno place.

So if I look inside that used engine and find M3 cams is that gonna explain how you got fast in a less than a stock car? I gotta tell you if your ready to finish first in the ICSCC championship you need to bring the car and a check book and I will get you there with a legal piece.

Now that I found the problem with a certain white and yellow Z-car you race against I would look to be winning anything too soon with a boneyard motor.

[Gary L]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 3 2005, 12:15 AM
Indeed, I do have little knowledge of the facts.

[snapback]64404[/snapback]

You've got that right!

Let me see if I can clear this up for you... here's what the thread is all about:

Once upon a time, the ITS E36 BMW was classified in ITS at the wrong weight. I repeat... the wrong weight. This created an immediate overdog situation, wherein a top-level prep job on subject car would allow it to run and hide from any other car in the class. Simple math, really... the power-to-weight ratio of this car is far better than any of the other competitive cars in the class, at the current classified weight. The ITAC is attempting to correct this situation with this and other cars, not necessarily all in ITS... there are 3 other IT classes involved in this laudable effort to level the IT playing field.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Gary L@Nov 2 2005, 05:42 PM
You've got that right!

Let me see if I can clear this up for you... here's what the thread is all about:

Once upon a time, the ITS E36 BMW was classified in ITS at the wrong weight. I repeat... the wrong weight. This created an immediate overdog situation, wherein a top-level prep job on subject car would allow it to run and hide from any other car in the class. Simple math, really... the power-to-weight ratio of this car is far better than any of the other competitive cars in the class, at the current classified weight. The ITAC is attempting to correct this situation with this and other cars, not necessarily all in ITS... there are 3 other IT classes involved in this laudable effort to level the IT playing field.

[snapback]64407[/snapback]

What he said

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 10:33 PM
You need to step back and read EVERYTHING here on this topic... You are very obviously missing some important information that has already been discussed at length in various threads on this topic...

This isn't about the BMW... It's about all of IT... we've explained this, laid it out, etc., for many, many months... there is really only a select group who really disagree with what we are trying to do...

Please go read all the info here before you bury yourself further in this muck...

Hi Darin!

It's entirely possible that I've not read everything that could have been read. I dug back in this forum ("Rules & Regs") and I don't find anything about parameters being changed for the BMWs until about December of 2004, where someone was upset with Andy and accussed him of singling out the cars.

Are there other forums here that I should be digging through? The BMW-specific one? That's much sparser, and maybe I didn't go back far enough. The only relevant thread I noticed was mostly about using weight or using a restrictor plate.

Anyway, I lurked through the "Rules & Regs" thread last year; looking at it again yesterday made me remember how surprised I was at it all. I hadn't heard of the restrictor plate idea before. Anything I had noticed in the FastTrack just said that the suggestions for competive adjustments were tabled because the IT classes at the time didn't guarantee competitiveness.

That charter was changed, and the restrictor plates were added to the BMWs. Now, we're talking about more weight in the cars.

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 10:33 PM
The bottom line concerning your position above is this... we can NOT classify cars based on someones "budget"... we have to consider what a fully developed example is capable of... Not to sound harsh, but yours is NOT that example, base on your description above...

Some classes do classify based on budget or preparation level; I've seen rules where a car is bumped up a class or two for a turbo or supercharger, or down a class for carrying extra weight. Why isn't that possible in the IT classes, now that their charter includes equalization?

Impractical to write the detailed rules? Too difficult at tech? To hard to get it (and keep it!) balanced? Maybe that's why the IT classes were chartered to not offer competitive equality in the first place.

It did come up in one of the other threads (in BMW-specific area, I think) that the drivers who didn't like the proposed changes were also driving cars that weren't as prepared as they could be. Indeed, I guess that might be one of the stumbling blocks for a lot of the drivers. I don't think my competitors are driving cars that are prepared to the top level, and I didn't expect I would have to do so, either. If that's not the case, then I can adjust to it -- but it's still a surprise.

If you have pointers to anything that you think I missed, I'd be happy to go through the material. Finding more details about the process and the committee, in particular, would be very interesting.

Thanks for your help!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 08:15 PM

do we really know the legitimacy of the cars that seem to be overpowered?

We don't know for sure. But I submit that anyone who sends in his/her dyno numbers is pretty close to the up and up. Especially when the dyno sheets support our original estimates.

How does the adivsory committee work? Where can I read their work product?

You can read it in Fast Track...your Bible for rule changes, suggestions and requests for member comment on subjects. You can also ask around. Learn some history, what has changed in the recent past, what is the outlook....

How can I participate, even if it's only to provide my data points?

e-mail anything you want to [email protected]. Requests, suggestions, data, etc.

How was it determined that this problem isn't a local issue that could be corrected by the stewards, instead of a national issue with a very wide-spread rule change?

Because the data supports the history and the theory. Builders supply data, people talk, we race, we learn.

If the rule change really does have to happen, who determines how it works?

The Competition Board. "CRB". Again, at [email protected]

How was the restrictor plate size chosen, for instance? Or the exact weights determined?

The RP was voted on and sized by the CRB. It was not a ITAC recommendation. They have access to a variety of data including but not limited to SCCA Pro Racing (World Challenge, where the many varieties of eligible Bimmers have to run RP's) as well as Z4 information they have garnered over the past 18 months while trying to equalize the competition in SSB.

Weights are determined by a 'process'. This is not an exact science, nor is it a hard and fast 'formula'. It is a strong foundation with some moving targets that the ITAC uses to set weights. Actually, we recommend the weights and the CRB sets them. This 'process' has only been in place for a short while - less than 2 years. The E36 325 was classed before the process was put in place (as were many cars in ITS and other classes but it sticks out as one that is VERY light).

Why wasn't a graduated system put in place, to make competition equality between preparation levels instead of across models?

Because what you suggest is beyond impossible. How do you define prep level? This is racing. Bring your best stuff and build it to the limit. I would NEVER expect to win any form of motorsports without at least equal equipment. To expect otherwise is to have no respect for the talents of your competitors.

Why adjust the E36 cars weight up instead of adjust other cars down, or give them other compensation? How will cars newer and faster than the E36 rigs be handled -- is just thowing weight and plates at the problem the right answer for the long term, or should there be new classes, or other mechanisms for equalizing the field of entrants? What about cars that aren't still equalized to the E36? Will even more weight be added?

Why complicate the issue? Why make many changes when you could only make one? What if these other cars can't get any lower in weight? Continue to read more topics on this board...classes above ITS have been suggested and are in the works for proposals.

The fact that you can run at the front of your class with such a low-prep car is either: more evidence that the E36 is better than anything in the class at it's current weight OR your competition is very weak OR you are the next A. Senna.

What else could it be?

AB

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan+Nov 3 2005, 12:41 AM-->

You kidding right? You come here quoting Dyno numbers and you can't name the dyno place.[/b]

Why is it hard to believe I don't know the name of the business? I was there once for about an hour. I don't have the sheet in front of me. They're one of those funny joints, where the name on the printout doesn't match the business card, and the business card doesn't match the sign out front. I'll stick with Carburetor Connection.

<!--QuoteBegin-Joe Harlan@Nov 3 2005, 12:41 AM
Now that I found the problem with a certain white and yellow Z-car you race against I would look to be winning anything too soon with a boneyard motor.

Who&#39;s that? Skip&#39;s rig? That&#39;ll be great; it&#39;ll be wonderful to run with him again. I had lots of fun and learned a ton that season. What was wrong? I bet I know -- he needed more stickers!!

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Gary L@Nov 3 2005, 12:42 AM
Once upon a time, the ITS E36 BMW was classified in ITS at the wrong weight. I repeat... the wrong weight.

Hiya, Gary!

You&#39;re saying this like the wrong weight was given to the car as if it was just a mistake. Is that true? Why wasn&#39;t it simply remedied? I think I remember reading something about that. Perhaps you can fill in that detail. It seems strange to have gone through all this -- revising the charter of the class, and so on -- just to correct such a mistake.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 01:06 AM
The fact that you can run at the front of your class with such a low-prep car is either: more evidence that the E36 is better than anything in the class at it&#39;s current weight OR your competition is very weak OR you are the next A. Senna.

What else could it be?

AB

[snapback]64411[/snapback]

I can tell you from personal experience that most of the 240Zs in ITS around here are maxed out... which leads me to believe it&#39;s #1...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 3 2005, 01:15 AM
Hiya, Gary!

You&#39;re saying this like the wrong weight was given to the car as if it was just a mistake. Is that true? Why wasn&#39;t it simply remedied? I think I remember reading something about that. Perhaps you can fill in that detail. It seems strange to have gone through all this -- revising the charter of the class, and so on -- just to correct such a mistake.

[snapback]64413[/snapback]

The cars performance potential was severely undersestimated upon it&#39;s original classification. Then, it was "rectified" and moved back up to 2950lbs, but that was shortly overturned when the BMW crowd complained that they couldn&#39;t achieve that weight because of the ballast rules...

Funny, because no one told them they HAD to remove all that crap, and if you&#39;ve ever seen a Bimmerworld cage, you know that they didn&#39;t hold back on the cage material to make up some of the weight!

Now, the ballast rules no longer have a 100lb limit, and we&#39;ve opened up the allowable area to include not only the footwell, but the passenger (front) seat area as well...

So, as with ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS we&#39;ve made over the past years to reclassify cars and adjust their weights, this is simply another in a list of corrections that needs to be made to get the spec lines aligned properely with the formal IT classification process...

All of this is before the CRB as we type, and should come out for member comment if they approve it in the next Fastrack... Then, if the BoD approves, it will all take place for 2006... There is a chance that it won&#39;t take effect until 2007..... it all depends on the timing ....

If the ITAC had had their way last season, this would have been done then instead of the restrictor, and I suspect that&#39;s what most of this uproar is about... two changes in two seasons... I agree... it&#39;s not ideal... It also won&#39;t happen again. We do NOT want this to be Production... We simply want to get everyone in line so we can move on and go racing...

[lateapex911]

Wow...

I&#39;m nearly speechless!

Mike, you&#39;re late to the game, and you&#39;re going to have to buckle up and do some due diligence. Read the rulebook. Dig deep thru this site. 90% of the questions you have asked have been discussed here, ad nauseum. And, if you have been payign attention for the past 4 years, you would know that there haas NEVER been a more cooperative, more transparent or more even handed Advisoy Commitee since the begining of time! The communication between the grand poobahs and the average racer is UNprecedented. You should be thanking your stars ....just three years ago you would be talking to yourself.

IT DOES have a prep level. It&#39;s in the rulebook. The NEXT prep level is Production, and the lesser prep level is Touring. IT has HUNDREDs of cars to choose from, and as you have seen you can choose a car, not prep it completely, and do just fine in your own little pond, if you choose your pond carefully.

I think your expectation of Darin calling you is, well, priceless! Why should he call you?? Should he call EVERYONE who has a question?? Why is your question more important? Honestly, he has a job...he has a family...he does a fantastic job in his role as chairman of the ITAC...but why should he call you...when you haven&#39;t shown the due diligence necessary to even have a well informed opinion?

If I don&#39;t understand how the government works, do I expect Pres Bush to call me and help me out? I am a taxpayer afterall.....

Or, take the other option, keep doing what you&#39;re doing. Seems you have a nice little world, and you really don&#39;t want to have to bother doing anything to change it. So don&#39;t. Just run your car. Count yourself lucky that you are doing so well with such an incomplete grasp of the situation, and such a half prepped car.

(I remember one year in SOLO II, I bought a car because the National Champ from the previous year was local and had one. Of course I got my ass whipped 30 times that year....collected buckets of second and third place trophies. I watched him and tried to learn. When we went to that years nationals (My first time), I was an early runner in a 50 car field, and ran off pace (17th) the first day on a drying track, but was right at the very front the second day...finished 4th overall I think. I was standing next to a guy in grid who was all depressed...he said he had 20 1st place trophies at home, but was getting whupped here...he was 30th. "I had no IDEA you could drive these cars THAT fast he lamented...)

Big ponds, little ponds and all that...

[MikeBlaszczak]

Thanks, Andy!! I&#39;m flattered and excited that you&#39;ve provided such a detailed response. It really helps me understand the changes, and I&#39;m glad you took the time to write it all up.

Hopefully, you&#39;ll continue to give me the benefit of the doubt and understand that my follow-up questions are because I want to have a better understanding and learn more, and not that I&#39;m badgering you or challenging the content of your answers.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Nov 3 2005, 01:06 AM-->

Especially when the dyno sheets support our original estimates.
[/b]

The original estimate is the 25% improvement over stock for ITS-allowed mods? I&#39;m curious about how that same number can hold for carbureted cars and EFI cars.

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 01:06 AM
You can read it in Fast Track...your Bible for rule changes, suggestions and requests for member comment on subjects.

I read FastTrack as consistently as I can. Why wouldn&#39;t I? The police blotter section about protests and escalations is worth it. But I can&#39;t call it my definitive reference for member comment because it seems more about reporting what&#39;s happened than soliciting any input. Am I missing a "policies and procedures" manual about the committees and the rule change process?

There&#39;s a problem with the September 2004 issue, by the way. "BMW" isn&#39;t mentioned in the text anywhere. Are there pages missing?

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Nov 3 2005, 01:06 AM-->

Why complicate the issue? Why make many changes when you could only make one? What if these other cars can&#39;t get any lower in weight? Continue to read more topics on this board...classes above ITS have been suggested and are in the works for proposals.[/b]

If the goal really is to equalize competition, I can&#39;t imagine that only one change is necessary. Before I bought my E36, I tried ITS with a 924S. It was a nightmare. That car needs help, and I think adding 150 poinds to the E36 isn&#39;t the answer.

Adding 150 pounds to the car still seems like a challenge. It all has to be in the passenger&#39;s side, ahead of the seat mounting area. I&#39;ll have to reinforce it to avoid ripping the floor pan if I have an OTE. It&#39;s got to be bolted down very specifically, which makes it hard to drop the weight and get to my next class. And it&#39;s got to be in 50 pound chunks. That&#39;s four bars of lead, each bigger than a one-liter bottle of soda, bolted down in there. Safely.

I remember reading about the new class. IT2, wasn&#39;t it? I thought it was completely killed -- or even that it was just a strawman proposal intended to get something done about the problem. I would be far more comfortable with additional classes and a restructuring; it just doesn&#39;t make sense to me to try and equalize relatively new models with cars that are 30 years old.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 01:06 AM
Because what you suggest is beyond impossible. How do you define prep level?

Well, the book has alredy done it, hasn&#39;t it? It&#39;s said that a certain level of modifications are the limit. That limit is the baseline: something missing is less, and something additional is more. Establishing rules for this among one make-model of car shouldn&#39;t be that hard. Doing it for many makes and models is exponentially hard, for sure.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 01:06 AM
Because the data supports the history and the theory.

What data? Just the horsepower-to-weight ratios, or has there been an analysis of cars and their finishing orders and so on?

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 01:06 AM
This is racing. Bring your best stuff and build it to the limit. I would NEVER expect to win any form of motorsports without at least equal equipment.

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?

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 01:06 AM
more evidence that the E36 is better than anything in the class at it&#39;s current weight OR your competition is very weak OR you are the next A. Senna.

What else could it be?

The only way I could answer is to learn to estimate how much my mods make a difference -- in time, not even in HP, so I can compare other cars in other regions. Or have them do the same, or come over here and run laps, or something.

Aryton didn&#39;t have much to do with beer or hamburgers, so that can&#39;t be it. Maybe it is something else: maybe I&#39;m the next Tony Stewart. I think he likes beer.

Thanks again for your answers; those answers, and a productive discussion about them, is what I&#39;ve been seeking.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 05:47 PM
Pllllease...some non-BMW, non-ITAC members weigh in here.

[snapback]64371[/snapback]

Why? Seems the BMW guys are doing a fanatastic job kicking themselves in their own balls...why get in the way?

<grin>

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 3 2005, 01:31 AM
I think your expectation of Darin calling you is, well, priceless! Why should he call you?? Should he call EVERYONE who has a question?? Why is your question more important? Honestly, he has a job...he has a family...he does a fantastic job in his role as chairman of the ITAC...but why should he call you...when you haven&#39;t shown the due diligence necessary to even have a well informed opinion?

Uh, I&#39;m not expecting him to call me. I figured he&#39;d send an email, and that&#39;s only because he offered.

Who told you that I was expecting a call?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak+Nov 2 2005, 06:54 PM-->

If the goal really is to equalize competition, I can&#39;t imagine that only one change is necessary. Before I bought my E36, I tried ITS with a 924S. It was a nightmare. That car needs help, and I think adding 150 poinds to the E36 isn&#39;t the answer.[/b]

Because the E36 was the biggest misclassification ever in ITS. This has been stated many times on this site and you have decided not to listen.

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 06:54 PM
Adding 150 pounds to the car still seems like a challenge. It all has to be in the passenger&#39;s side, ahead of the seat mounting area. I&#39;ll have to reinforce it to avoid ripping the floor pan if I have an OTE. It&#39;s got to be bolted down very specifically, which makes it hard to drop the weight and get to my next class. And it&#39;s got to be in 50 pound chunks. That&#39;s four bars of lead, each bigger than a one-liter bottle of soda, bolted down in there. Safely.

No problem start putting the stock stuff back on the car.

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 06:54 PM
it just doesn&#39;t make sense to me to try and equalize relatively new models with cars that are 30 years old.

Your right it would be easier to declassify the e36 but since people have invested in them I am glad this group saw fit to try to fix the problem.


<!--QuoteBegin-MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 06:54 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?

Nope again, Let just say this 6500 bucks for a competitive Z motor, 1200 bucks for the header and exhaust on that same car. 4500 bucks for a competitive suspension, This is just the start to run a Z car anywhere near the front. You think that it&#39;s right for you to beat these cars with a stock exhaust and a junk yard motor? You should be a able to see that you are not necessarily a getting closer to a being a front runner. What has really happend is you brought a tank to a pistol match.

[snapback]64419[/snapback]

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 2 2005, 07:08 PM
Why? Seems the BMW guys are doing a fanatastic job kicking themselves in their own balls...why get in the way?

<grin>

[snapback]64421[/snapback]

Now thats funny!

[JeffYoung]

Simply unbelievable. A guy with a BMW with a junkyard motor, a borderline (non-race) chip, and a STOCK exhaust manifold is complaining about adding 200 lbs to his car because that means he can&#39;t run at the front with his friends and set track records??

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 3 2005, 01:54 AM
The original estimate is the 25% improvement over stock for ITS-allowed mods? I&#39;m curious about how that same number can hold for carbureted cars and EFI cars.

You may not undestand this because you haven&#39;t been here long enough to have read it, but the ITAC uses varied percentage-improvements with IT-prep depending on the configuration... 25% is a rough starting point for an EFI car... You&#39;ll find that there are Hondas, Acuras, and others that actually make closer to 30-35% with "legal" IT prep... This is based on dyno runs that were provided to us by competitors, as well as by CRB members who happen to do a lot of dyno work...

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&#39;t prove that these are legal, but then, that&#39;s not our job... It&#39;s YOURS... NO one seems to have the balls to do it, however... That&#39;s not really our problem...

So, for the E36, we decided to give the car the benefit of the doubt and use numbers we feel are legit and legal... they are obviously achievable... This notion is fully supported by your own numbers, which show 170whp for an unprepared junk-yard motor... Imagine what that motor would produce with an overbore, maxed compression (.5 over listed compression), perfect valve timing, a proper Motec or similiar ECU, port matching, and a real exhaust system... Not to mention alternate pullies, etc... which were recently made legal for all cars... I feel VERY comforatable that this car makes at LEAST 195whp with IT prep...

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak+Nov 3 2005, 01:54 AM-->

If the goal really is to equalize competition, I can&#39;t imagine that only one change is necessary. Before I bought my E36, I tried ITS with a 924S. It was a nightmare. That car needs help, and I think adding 150 poinds to the E36 isn&#39;t the answer.
[/b]

You&#39;ve missed a post somewhere, because I&#39;m positive I&#39;ve stated a couple of times that this is a PLAN... a STRATEGIC PLAN, if you will, for Improved Touring... 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...)...

So, you see, this is a BIG change to the entire IT structure, theoretically, and, in reality, just a lot of classification adjustments to get cars in line with one-another...

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...

<!--QuoteBegin-MikeBlaszczak@Nov 3 2005, 01:54 AM
Adding 150 pounds to the car still seems like a challenge. It all has to be in the passenger&#39;s side, ahead of the seat mounting area. I&#39;ll have to reinforce it to avoid ripping the floor pan if I have an OTE. It&#39;s got to be bolted down very specifically, which makes it hard to drop the weight and get to my next class. And it&#39;s got to be in 50 pound chunks. That&#39;s four bars of lead, each bigger than a one-liter bottle of soda, bolted down in there. Safely.

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, (Heaven forbid someones girlfriend/wife is that size! ) and also an area which should help put the weight in a more favorable spot. You see, we DO still want these to be RACE CARS...

The rules allow for reinforcing the floor area for the ballast, and it&#39;s not really our job to make sure you can "make it to your next class"... That&#39;s your engineering problem to deal with...

I can tell you from personal experience, however, that 150lbs of weight is NOT that large a volume of material... I had to add that much to my 240SX to run in Radial Sedan a few years back, and it consisted of some 1/2" thick x 3" wide x 12" long steel plates, stacked up to and bolted into a World Challenge rewards weight box... Could have fit it all in a shoe box...

Funny, no one compains about safety when it comes to wanting to mount a battery inside the car in the very same location???

I hope this helps...