The BMW E36 ITS Car Should......

[Ron Earp]

Gosh, I can't remember what I voted for.....

[steve s]

i vote for weight. i am not a bmw driver but do maintain carlos's car. i know he doesnot visit this site.
also as an IT driver i do not think SIR has a plce in IT not yet anyhow,maybe after it is understood a little better. IT is supposed to be a relatively reasonable entry level form of racing[ cost wise] let's just keep it that way.also it was said that you can cheat a FP restrictor so sooner or later they would figure out how to cheat the SIR. to cheat weight is pretty hard since you don't know after a race or qualifying if you would be weighed. just my .02 cents i may be wrong in my thinking if so i 'll stand corrected.

[Knestis]

... If you are a non-ITS driver, did you vote for weight or SIR? ...[/b]

Non-ITS driver who thinks SIRs complicate the entire picture way too much, and are going to become one more step toward the implementation of true performance adjustments (blech) in IT.

Look at it this way: Sure there are two sides to the rough weight/power formula but adding mass acts directly on the numerator of the fraction, where adding an SIR acts only indirectly on the power.

K

[dj10]

also it was said that you can cheat a FP restrictor [/b]

Steve, if the CRB would have been acurate when they wrote the FRP rule, it could not have been cheated. IMO

[lateapex911]

For those that don't know, the rule stated that you had to run a certain size plate with a certain size hole and the thickness and edge profile were mandated, IIRC.

It also allowed a "spacer" so that the throttle plate would clear the new FPR (Flat Plate Restrictor). Somebody correct me if i have any of this wrong.

.....the net result was that the hole was cut off center in the plate, and the spacer included a ramp profile.
Seems the location of the hole, nor the spacer profile were spelled out.

So, from what I understand, the area of greatest airflow in the spot the plate was to be installed was rather off center. With the hole off center, and the spacer helping, horsepower losses were minimal. My understanding was that even with the early non profiled spacer installed, you could count the losses on one hand. (Actual mileage may vary, depending on how and where you dyno, LOL)

So, to clear that up, the "cheating" wasn't cheating at all..it was smart rules reading, and yes, if the rule had been more thorough, the results would have been different.

[Joe Harlan]

For those that don't know, the rule stated that you had to run a certain size plate with a certain size hole and the thickness and edge profile were mandated, IIRC.

It also allowed a "spacer" so that the throttle plate would clear the new FPR (Flat Plate Restrictor). Somebody correct me if i have any of this wrong.

.....the net result was that the hole was cut off center in the plate, and the spacer included a ramp profile.
Seems the location of the hole, nor the spacer profile were spelled out.

So, from what I understand, the area of greatest airflow in the spot the plate was to be installed was rather off center. With the hole off center, and the spacer helping, horsepower losses were minimal. My understanding was that even with the early non profiled spacer installed, you could count the losses on one hand. (Actual mileage may vary, depending on how and where you dyno, LOL)

So, to clear that up, the "cheating" wasn't cheating at all..it was smart rules reading, and yes, if the rule had been more thorough, the results would have been different.
[/b]

YOu aren't gonna cheat(or be creative) an SIR like that.

[BMW RACER]

Joe and crew.
I can't help but wonder, why don't we just go to a smaller FRP (with the hole in the middle). Save the cost of the SIR and the cost of re-engineering our intake system (air box etc). We already have the spacer.

[Joe Harlan]

John, My personal opinion is an FPR can be cheated to many ways. Second call Frank and ask him how the car will drive with an FPR small enough to actually do the job. My experience with a FPR is they mess up the whole power curve and create serious low flat spots in the throttle response.

[lateapex911]

Joe makes good points.

A smaller FPR was discussed, but they are noted for killing tq and drivability. My understandning is that the internal turbulence can wreak havoc with fuel management, is internally uneven, and is difficult to predict.

That creates two problems. First, from a rulesmaking point of view, the size is difficult to determine.
For the competitor, it represents new needs for tuning and optimization.

I think it was felt that the downsides would be:
=The racers who had the greatest tuning ability would be less effected, while the average racer would have a much more serious uphill battle. The potential existed that the more costly fuel mangement solutions could be more effective.
=The correct size FPR would leave cars that had drivability issues.
=Difficulty in determining the proper size.
= While it seems the infrastructure is alread in place, a new and effective rule would require the producing companies and the racers to start afresh.

The advantages would be
-Less expensive (for the part, tuning would be optional)
-No airbox mods required.

So, from my understanding the FPR was considered early on, but dismissed.
That's not to say that any 'solution' doesn't have drawbacks...they ALL do.

And really, when you're trying to slow a car down, there's no 'painless' way of doing it.

[BMW RACER]

Joe & Jake.
Thanks for the response. Your arguments make sense, but has anyone really tried the smaller FPR?

I'm just going to take a wait and see. Hopefully we should know something soon.

[zracre]

And really, when you're trying to slow a car down, there's no 'painless' way of doing it.
[/b]

True but weight is the cheapest and has the smallest impact on the budget racer...yes you will use more tires and brakes, but if you are on a budget, you are good at conserving that anyways...right? and the other guys wont have to spend all their money buying new tires every weekend just to keep up weight is the simplest route.

[charrbq]

Call me opinionated, or cheap, or whatever, but if you can afford to race just about any car in ITS, but in particular a BMW, you don't really worry about the price of additional tire and brake pad wear. Handling will become an issue, but that's part of the point, not just top end.

[Bill Miller]

You know Jake, you could apply most of those same downsides to the implementation of an SIR. And another simple fact of racing life, is that the guys w/ more resources and better ability (both driving and tuning) will make the folks w/ less resources and less ability (aren't those the "average racers"?) work harder. There's no value judgement in that statement, it's a simple fact of life in racing (actually, life in general). Doesn't matter if you're building a full-tilt GT-1 car, or running a spec class, the folks w/ resources and ability will rise to the top.

[zracre]

yep thats why it should be treated like all other IT cars...add weight and go racing. SIR=bad direction for IT these days...let it get developed and some time for implementation down the road after it has been used by some other classes or tested by SCCA more thoroughly. Weight is simple and more in the spirit of IT. These threads on the SIR are getting old and a decision should be made so we can talk about more important issues like washer bottles and wiper stalks

[charrbq]

Agreed! I never cease to be amazed at the innovative application of development that goes on at the level of IT. Weight, while constant, can be manipulated...it's proven...50lb. kill switches. But give those who have the resources the opportunity to develop an SIR, and the tech inspectors, rules makers, and competitiors will be left spinning in the dust.

Speaking of pertinent discussions...I almost broke my signal stalk off my car this weekend when it caught on my pants leg while getting in the car. My crew almost called the paramedics when they saw my panic. I did notice a camera crew from Fox News Network heading my way when they heard me yell.

[mlytle]

True but weight is the cheapest and has the smallest impact on the budget racer...yes you will use more tires and brakes, but if you are on a budget, you are good at conserving that anyways...right? and the other guys wont have to spend all their money buying new tires every weekend just to keep up weight is the simplest route.
[/b]

bzzzzzzt, ah no. at the weight amount being bantered around, that budget may need to include different springs, shock revalving, alignment, suspension tuning days, new diff ratio, etc. weight is not just about wear items.

and i am sure i am already spending just as much on tires and brakes as anyone else out there to compete near the top....without the added weight.

there is no relatively simple route.

[Bill Miller]

bzzzzzzt, ah no. at the weight amount being bantered around, that budget may need to include different springs, shock revalving, alignment, suspension tuning days, new diff ratio, etc. weight is not just about wear items.

and i am sure i am already spending just as much on tires and brakes as anyone else out there to compete near the top....without the added weight.

there is no relatively simple route.
[/b]

Marshall,

While I appreciate the costs associated w/ having to deal w/ those items, is it fair to the rest of the ITS communnity that the E36 should get special treatment, just because somebody screwed the pooch when the car was classified? The rest of ITS has had to deal w/ a car that was mis-classed for several years now. I don't see how they should have to deal w/ it getting special treatment on top of that. One of the real benefits of a defined classification process, is that it's supposed to be pretty objective. Data in, class and spec weight out.

[dj10]

Marshall,

While I appreciate the costs associated w/ having to deal w/ those items, is it fair to the rest of the ITS communnity that the E36 should get special treatment, just because somebody screwed the pooch when the car was classified? The rest of ITS has had to deal w/ a car that was mis-classed for several years now. I don't see how they should have to deal w/ it getting special treatment on top of that. One of the real benefits of a defined classification process, is that it's supposed to be pretty objective. Data in, class and spec weight out. [/b]

Bill, while we appreciate your understanding, is it fair that the E36 has been racing some 6 years in thee ITS class and is only now getting adjusted!? We didn's screw the pooch as you put it, honest. But now we will be the one that suffer if we don't or can't be competative with major losses of money and worse of all time. Most, or at least some of us are ready to give this a try in hope's that this will be good for the whole. If this doesn't work then it's time to look hard a good at making another class. This is my 2nd year in ITS and I never want to hear or see this kind of whinning from any group of, I would hope adults ever again. I think now after all I've seen and heard, to hell with the bylaws, please get us out of ITS. This is the year 2006 everything changes with time and so should the SCCA bylaws. To hell with the weight, SIR, and the FPR give me Improved Touring "F" (FAST) or give me death! I forgot to say if the damn car was to fast 6 years ago, why wasn't this done before now. WTG.............6 years of frustration, no wonder everyone is bitching!

[Bill Miller]

dj,

The reason it wasn't done prior to now, was that there really was no 'legal' way to do it. A year or two after the E36 was classed, the weight was kicked up by 100#. Several people screamed "You can't do that, it's an illegal comp. adj.!!!", and the CB gave in to them. And I didn't mean to imply that the E36 drivers screwed the pooch, it was the people that set the initial spec weight. BTW, can one of the ITAC folks w/ access to the records check when the E36 325 was first classified, and when the 3rd gen. Supra was first classified. The Supra is the older car, so I would think that it was first.

As far as a class above ITS, I'm all for it. I could care less what it's called, just get it done!!! I've been calling for an increase in the granularity level of IT for the better part of 4 or 5 years now. Pretty much since Kirk floated the whole IT2 idea. The bar has been raised, there haven't been any 'real' ITC cars in over 10 years (at least not any that someone would want to race). The fact that the 2.0 8v New Beetle ended up in ITC is a glaring indication of this. So, you've now got 3 classes to put cars in, and there aren't a whole bunch of new ITB cars either.

Another bucket is needed. It will allow more cars to be classified, and while tighten the performance envelope for those cars already classed. And most of all, it will get rid of this silly notion of choking cars down just so they fit. Screw SIRs, they have no place in IT, and I'm not really sure they have a place in GT. I think they were thrown at GTL as a band-aid to facilitate combining GT4 and GT5.

Don't let guys like Joe shout you down about no room for new classes, and nobody wanting new classes. The fact that SM wasn't enough, and you got enough people together to create SSM shows just how wrong he is. I'll sign any petition that anybody puts together, to add a class above ITS (just as long as you don't include SIRs as part of the classification model). Write letters, it's our club. How many of you E36 guys wouldn't love to run those cars w/ no SIR, no FPR, and at somewhere around 2650#? In the words of Larry the Cable Guy, GIT 'ER DONE!

[charrbq]

Well put. Unlike PCA or other mark clubs, we don't need a crowd of IT classes, but that doesn't mean we haven't got room for more. There are way too many cars out there that are perfect for IT, but they're too fast for the lower classes or too high tech for the upper ones. An excellent example is the IS300. It's market place is against the BMW 325. Why not get off the BMW's butt and move it and the cars of it's performance level up another class. All you have to do is look at what runs in the Speed challenge and see where we could go. All I ask (selfish reasons here) don't mess with ITC. We may be old and few, but we're having a good time.