Jan 07 Fast Track is up

[JoshS]

Jake,

All the 2.8l BMW's need to be seperated between '98 and '99. In the Z3 the chassis is the same but there's enough of a change that they should be considered different motors with different wire harnesses and different stock ECU's. In the sedan this is where the e-36 and e-46 part ways, again with different wire harnesses and ECU's. There's also the fact that the double VANOS has more potential as it's continuously variable verses the off/on nature of the single VANOS and has a larger range of adjustment. Should be worth at least 10hp from talking to someone who built one up for USTCC, and that's before really optimizing it.

James
[/b]

James,

At least for the Z3, leave them on the same line and take advantage of update/backdate!

On the 328i, since the '98 is an E36 and the '99 is an E46, I think it's appropriate to break those up.

[Matt Rowe]

Without the exception, the only way to get a cell (of typical capacity) would be to cut out the rear seat area and go up and/or put it in the passenger compartment. I doubt anyone believes those are good ideas.[/b]

So it's possible but it results in a higher cg? Again i don't see the need for an exception. Plus i'd feel a lot better about a fuel cell closer to the center of a roll cage than out in the trunk which is essentially a crush zone.

I do know my car falls into a similar category as it is a thin tank beneath the rear seat, installing a fuel cell would result in it being higher than stock and extending into the passenger compartment. And yes I would rather have it back in the trunk for weight reasons but I don't think it justifies an exception to the rules.

I still don't see any good reason to justify an exception or any difficulty that is any worse than a challenge any other car faces.

[lateapex911]

Well, Matt, if we had a clean sheet of paper....

But we don't, and there are cars out there running around with setups based on the line item notes...so changing that isn't possible, obviously.

Then we have cars getting moved to new classes..but they are already built presumably, so they too need to keep the exception.

Soooo..., in your eyes, the exceptions should be limited to those already in existance, and no others?

[Matt Rowe]

Soooo..., in your eyes, the exceptions should be limited to those already in existance, and no others?[/b]

That sounds about right. I can't see any reason to justify expanding an exception that isn't uniformly applied to the entire class. But the rationale of it's an existing situaution that is hard to undo is better than the original reason of "it's too difficult" that was presented.

[GKR_17]

At least for the Z3, leave them on the same line and take advantage of update/backdate!

On the 328i, since the '98 is an E36 and the '99 is an E46, I think it's appropriate to break those up.
[/b]

Different engines on the same spec line already exists with the E36 325. The '92 was pre-vanos with a different head, ECU, and harness.

As for the '99 328, the 4-door is an E46, but the 2-door is the last year for the E36 I believe. The specs on the line do not mach the E36 chassis though. Also, the 'is' designation ended with the E36 as well (2-door E46 models are labeld 'Ci&#39. The way the line is now, you could presumable update/backdate from the E46 to the E36 chassis, and that surely isn't right.

[IPRESS]

I am not so sure on the wight stickers. Why would they re-write the section and bold new text only to have it 'rejected'? There is also no clear END to that section. Could one logically assume that the original wording was rejected and this new wording is the new rule? It sure is less stern than the GCR is right now...I will have the stickers on...

<div align="left">D. Minimum Weight Decals

<div align="left">The specified minimum weight shall be displayed on both sides of the racecar. The numbers shall be sufficient in size and legibility to be read from a distance of ten feet. If the displayed number should be found at any time to be lower than the current specified minimum weight, this shall be considered a violation of the rules.</div>
[/i]
[/b][/quote]
Andy can you get a REAL answer on this? What I read is that the requirement was rejected. I have been wrong before.....a lot.

Thanks, Mac

[erlrich]

It sure is less stern than the GCR is right now[/b]

Andy, I may have missed it; is there something currently in the GCR about weight stickers?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Must have been thinking the proposed wording - it was harsh.

The common thought process is that it has been shot down. Not an issue anymore.

[leggwork]

just curious - why would anybody object to the min weight you&#39;re supposed to be above being posted on your window to make it easier for tech?
cheers,
bruce

Must have been thinking the proposed wording - it was harsh.

The common thought process is that it has been shot down. Not an issue anymore.
[/b]

[Greg Amy]

just curious - why would anybody object to the min weight you&#39;re supposed to be above being posted on your window to make it easier for tech?[/b]

Well, Bruce, that&#39;s just not the way things have been done before! Of course!

Seriously, I canNOT imagine what reasonable disagreement there is with this. What, the $5 in vinyl? Soem kind of misguided competitive advantage like knowing someone&#39;s horsepower (another silly argument)?

Regardless, I&#39;m putting my weight listing on the car. As an inspector, I know it makes life SOOOO much easier for Tech. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bruce,

Check out some of the web-boards. The responses to the way it was worded had peoples panties in a bunch. I thought it was a great idea and I will be doing it.

[Knestis]

I&#39;ve already got my weight stickers made and am VERY glad that they&#39;ve revisited the extra language in the original draft of the rule, that described the draconian penalty for not having them. There&#39;s no need for the rules to stipulate what will happen if you fall afoul of them, unless we want to go to mandatory sentencing guidelines for every clause in the book.

K

[Eagle7]

Regardless, I&#39;m putting my weight listing on the car. As an inspector, I know it makes life SOOOO much easier for Tech. - GA
[/b]

I&#39;m curious. If they&#39;re not required to be correct, how will this help them? Like when they ask me what my weight is supposed to be - that really makes me wonder.



I do think it&#39;s a good rule and would like to see it passed.

[tom91ita]

any suggestions as to font type and size that would be good (to meet the visible from 10 feet, etc.? also, i guess i will need to do something innovative to cover different classes:

GP 1900 #
ITB 2130 #

are you guys planning on putting the graphics on the outside of the window or on the inside?
white letters/black background or just white letters on glass?

any tech folks out there with a preference? if we are doing this for them, i&#39;d like to make sure it works for you.

[ddewhurst]

Information decal of the future.


ITA weight (lbs) 2280

Brakes Std. (mm) (F) 227 Disc ® 200 Drum ® 236 Disc

Gear Ratios 3.88, 2.22, 1.43, 1.00, 0.83

Wheel Dia. (inch) 13

Wheel Base (inch) 95.3

Comp Ratio 9.4

Valves IN & EX (mm) There are no valves

Displ. (cc) 2292

Engine Type 2 rotor

[gran racing]

Hmmm, I like the min. weight decal idea but a bar code system might just work.

[ddewhurst]

Dave, I like that ^.

[tdw6974]

I&#39;m curious. If they&#39;re not required to be correct, how will this help them? Like when they ask me what my weight is supposed to be - that really makes me wonder.



I do think it&#39;s a good rule and would like to see it passed.
[/b]

Just have to jump in here As Tech inspector in my former years (1980- 2002) for SCCA, IMSA,and any other bunch that showed up at Watkins Glen I usually ran the platform scales for all those years it will make life easier for your Friendly inspector. On the SCCA site there are currently displayed 30 plus pages of weights "updated monthly" as an Weigh/Scale Master (occasional referred to as the astard at the scales) I DID NOT WANT TO KNOW what you car is supposed to weigh just give me a starting point and I get you in and out in a hurry! Win or DQED no adding a pound or 2 to squeak someone through. Also remember the scales are the scales at that track really didn&#39;t care if someone says" I weighed 150 lbs more last week at -- insert name of track-- any How I have our decals ready to Install here is site http://www.zazzle.com/products/product/pro...4649000-8812950 and I&#39;m sure somone on the board can whip some fine vinyl up for us. Rember be friendly to that old tech inspector with a little luck you may see him in impound is it race time yet???

[JIgou]

I think the minimum weight sticker makes sense, but the proposed implementation left a little to be desired.

IMHO, the best thing National could do if they want to go this route would be to create a standard sticker and sell it/share the cut files so everyone&#39;s weight sticker looks the same. (Think kill switch sticker/fire system sticker). Then require it to be in the same general area on the cars, at least by class.

Jarrod

[Greg Amy]

...create a standard sticker and sell it/share the cut files so everyone&#39;s weight sticker looks the same. (Think kill switch sticker/fire system sticker)...[/b]

Or someone develops and resells one that is so clever - and so cost-effective - that it becomes the de facto standard (think Racer Wholesale-sourced kill switches or MazdaSpeed tow hooks for SMs, for example...)