Teach me about ITR 325's

[JeffYoung]

Matt, no problem. I do get worked up over that one, need to settle down.

I agree 100% with Greg (on rare occasion, that happens, because on rare occasion, he is right...lol....I'm kidding you Greg). He laid out precisely what you can and can't do with a repair.

I also can't tell from you link if that is a legal repair but it sure looks a hell of a lot less like illegal reinforcement than what those Autotechnic photos showed.

Time for me to move, thread got jacked.

Mike, bottom line for me is the E36 is one of those "just great" race chassis. I don't know of anyone who raced or races one that regretted it (outside of the rules crap it suffered through, and despite my believe that 215 whp in ITS it was a mess, I also felt the SIR was a debacle for the car owners). Honestly, while I like the Lude a lot and the build looks great, the E36 is probably a better base for a race car.

Have fun with both!

[benspeed]

I suppose my comment should be for a rules thread, not wholehearted support for building 325 ITR/S cars and making them safer. These bimmers are great and I've always flirted with racing one. Drove a bunch on the track and it's tops.

So to the issue on the rear subframe mount (which alone sounds terrifying to somebody not familiar). To the extent this is a safety issue where its known to fail and one of our friends and fellow racers gets hurt because they didn't make repair, know how to inspect or didn't know about the issue. Wouldn' all of us feel like shitheads?

Selfish perspective mode on - I'm now firmly in the Porsche camp and the known ball joint/control arm failure issue exists for the 944/968 cars. I know three SCCA drivers involved in serious wrecks in top cars because of this. I can't do anything for that other than the planned rotation of two sets of stock control arms and detailed inspection. What a pain in the ass that'll be!

How would you guys feel if I got hurt because despite my rigor in maintaining and inspecting the control arms and ball joints on my new 968? I'd prefer to replace the stock with arms with the aftermarket units that provide no advantage but are designed for the lowered height of a race car. That'll never happen. I do hallucinate alot but not that bad...


In my opinion fellow racers should forgiving of a known safety issue. It will be clear to a reasonable person if a competition advantage is being sought and gained. Like using fully adjustable control arms in replacment of stock....

[JeffYoung]

This is going to sound cold, but it's not meant that way.

I have intermitten complete brake caliper failures despite changing calipers 3-4 times a season. What a pain in the ass that is! Should I be allowed altenative calipers and big vented discs as a result?

The front wheel bearing on my car, outer, is maybe the size of a silver dollar. It fails. I change them pretty much every 2 weekends. I still on occasion have them fail, and I lost a hub at CMP (and all brakes as it "kicked the pads back" as the hub/rotor flailed around) and nearly went into the turn 14 wall. What a pain in the ass that is! ShouldI be allowed a better hub and bearing assembly (easily available) as a result?

My transmission routinely - every 18 months or so -- loses all gears except 5 (I break shift pins). I try to change trannies every 18 months or so, what a pain in the ass that is!

Ben, always liked your posts and look forward to meeting you, but your statements below -- what a pain in the ass maintenance is! and give me an allowance because I might get hurt -- are the precise reason we CANNOT do what you suggest.

Make your car choice knowingly. Deal with teh warts. We can all have trouble on track, and that is not a reason to give any car a "safety" allowance when pain in the ass! maintenance will resolve MOST of the safety issues.

I suppose my comment should be for a rules thread, not wholehearted support for building 325 ITR/S cars and making them safer. These bimmers are great and I've always flirted with racing one. Drove a bunch on the track and it's tops.

So to the issue on the rear subframe mount (which alone sounds terrifying to somebody not familiar). To the extent this is a safety issue where its known to fail and one of our friends and fellow racers gets hurt because they didn't make repair, know how to inspect or didn't know about the issue. Wouldn' all of us feel like shitheads?

Selfish perspective mode on - I'm now firmly in the Porsche camp and the known ball joint/control arm failure issue exists for the 944/968 cars. I know three SCCA drivers involved in serious wrecks in top cars because of this. I can't do anything for that other than the planned rotation of two sets of stock control arms and detailed inspection. What a pain in the ass that'll be!

How would you guys feel if I got hurt because despite my rigor in maintaining and inspecting the control arms and ball joints on my new 968? I'd prefer to replace the stock with arms with the aftermarket units that provide no advantage but are designed for the lowered height of a race car. That'll never happen. I do hallucinate alot but not that bad...


In my opinion fellow racers should forgiving of a known safety issue. It will be clear to a reasonable person if a competition advantage is being sought and gained. Like using fully adjustable control arms in replacment of stock....

[Spinnetti]

This is going to sound cold, but it's not meant that way.

I have intermitten complete brake caliper failures despite changing calipers 3-4 times a season. What a pain in the ass that is! Should I be allowed altenative calipers and big vented discs as a result?

The front wheel bearing on my car, outer, is maybe the size of a silver dollar. It fails. I change them pretty much every 2 weekends. I still on occasion have them fail, and I lost a hub at CMP (and all brakes as it "kicked the pads back" as the hub/rotor flailed around) and nearly went into the turn 14 wall. What a pain in the ass that is! ShouldI be allowed a better hub and bearing assembly (easily available) as a result?

My transmission routinely - every 18 months or so -- loses all gears except 5 (I break shift pins). I try to change trannies every 18 months or so, what a pain in the ass that is!

Ben, always liked your posts and look forward to meeting you, but your statements below -- what a pain in the ass maintenance is! and give me an allowance because I might get hurt -- are the precise reason we CANNOT do what you suggest.

Make your car choice knowingly. Deal with teh warts. We can all have trouble on track, and that is not a reason to give any car a "safety" allowance when pain in the ass! maintenance will resolve MOST of the safety issues.

Lol... S*&t man, you are lucky that's all driving a british car! We pays our money and takes our chances... IT is way too rule crazy.

[JLawton]

IT is way too rule crazy.

You think so??? Go onto the Prod sites. That whole thing is insane!!

It really isn't crazy, it's just that people try to twist the rules to fit their need. Yeah, there's some silly things but they're all meant to keep IT from turning into Prod.



The bottom line on the original request: The BMW is a great car. Solid, reliable, proven winner, lots of good information and lots of after market support. You won't be kicking yourself in two years becasue the car is uncompetative.




.

[Spinnetti]

You think so??? Go onto the Prod sites. That whole thing is insane!!

It really isn't crazy, it's just that people try to twist the rules to fit their need. Yeah, there's some silly things but they're all meant to keep IT from turning into Prod.



The bottom line on the original request: The BMW is a great car. Solid, reliable, proven winner, lots of good information and lots of after market support. You won't be kicking yourself in two years becasue the car is uncompetative.
.

Yeah, I'm thinking about one too actually after decades trying to stay up front with a non-front running type car. Almost seems a sellout to run what everybody else does though! I saw several comments about VANOS - is it 93 and up or 94 and up I should be looking for?

As to rules, I'm contrasting IT where people complain if a windshield washer nozzle is aimed at 5 vs. 6 degrees to the "Lemons race" where anything goes, yet somehow, the competition is still pretty even.. believe it or not, I've been finding Lemons more fun, and am doing two events this year.

[tnord]

i'd run one, i think.

before i did it i would want to find out just how long one can expect to go before the subframe mounts need to be cut out and new pieces welded in. i'd want to know what that costs, and how hard the necessary parts (OEM factory installed!!!!) are to come by. if it's reasonable, i would then move on to finding the weight/power balance i thought was best for ITR. i know the thread title says "325" but i'd look very hard at what the 328 weight is, and find out what the restriction point is in both motors. the 325 should be easier because the development has been done for ITS, but the extra displacement of the 328 might provide a torque advantage that suits your local tracks better.

my final question would be....what line of work are you in that you're building a new ITR BMW right after an ITR Prelude, and are you hiring?!

[Knestis]

OKAY - Riddle me this, Batman...

IF substantially different parts (e.g., bumpers) define one model as distinct from another model, AND we can't put SOME of the parts from one model on another model without creating a model that never existed, THEN why even have the update/backdate rule that defines "assemblies" as the basis for updating/backdating...?

The only allowance for updating/backdating consistent with the assumptions being presented here would require updating/backdating ANY AND ALL parts/assemblies that are different, or none at all. And THAT wouldn't have been legal under the VIN rule restriction, since the VIN defines a model because it's year-specific.

Hmmm?

Kirk (who's increasingly baffled by the great inconsistencies here, between what he thought he understood and what is being presented here)

[Greg Amy]

Since you probably know my answer(s), let me turn that around on you instead: If you CAN create a model that never existed vis-a-vis bumpers, other bodywork, fuel injection systems, combination of any/all of these and more etc, then why add the further restriction of "can't create a model" to the rules?

I think at this point I can safely infer you disagree with me. That's fine, though it does in a way seem out of character (making me humorously ask: "Hey! ITAC! Who is this guy and what did you do with Kirk Knestis???") But all I'm doing is pointing out the rules for what they're saying, just like you and I always do. I suggest the onus is not on me to support the rules as they're written, but for you to try and illustrate why they don't apply as written...

GA

[dickita15]

I have got to admit I really have no idea what a model is in this context. There is nothing in the glossary. When speaking of Mazdas, the RX7 is a model as is the Miata or the RX3. Is the definition really finer than that? Can someone give a good example of creating a model? Are there cases where there is more than one model on a spec line now?
My 79 rx7 has 81-85 front sheetmetal and bumper as they are more plentiful and a couple of pounds lighter. Did I create a model? If so why is there even a update backdate provision?

[Gary L]

I know one thing; having read all this, I'm glad that of all the old 142's out there that I could have bought, I ended up with one in which the engine (ummm... make that THE engine, a 71 B20E) happens to match the year model of the chassis.

[seckerich]

This one could go the distance on mental masturbation!!

[Greg Amy]

I have got to admit I really have no idea what a model is in this context.

I concur.

Is it just "Mazda RX-7"? If so, and that "model" encompasses all that an "RX-7" can be, how it is even POSSIBLE to "create" a model, short of putting in a Chevy 350ci? And, absent that Chevy engine, why have the line about allowing updating/backdating, and restricting "creation of a model", since as long as you use RX-7 parts it's impossible to "create" a model?

Interestingly, a quick trip in the Wayback Machine to the very first IT rules...

You're right: I totally forgot about that old verbiage.

My answer to your initial quesiton would have been "think of it in context of when the rules were written; i.e., bodies were rarely changed, and really the only difference between the various 'models' of 1972-1979 Borgwards as the S model that had the 1.6L and carbs and 4-speed, and the SX model that had the 1.8L, fuel injection and the close-ratio 5-speed."

Given the old verbiage, I'd suggest the original intent was so that you could not create an S+, which was the carb'd engine (and much lower classified weight) with the SX's close-ratio box, for example.

Today that clear line is no longer there; we've got the RX-7 that had two different gearboxes, two different sets of brakes, two different compression ratios, two different hoods, two different 5th gears, rear wing or no rear wing, and so forth. Only a Mazda enthusiast would even begin to understand what S4 versus S5 is all about. In the context of that original rule, I'd suggest my original premise stands, and that's my baseline.

However, we now have that new verbiage. Was that a clarification, or was it a rule change? Did it happen as a Fastrack proposal (i.e., rule change) or did it happen on a Tech Bulletin (i.e., clarification without change of rule). When did it happen? I think the answer to those questions will go a long way to interpreting its intent, as well as framing my position going forward...

GA

[Doc Bro]

It's interesting to see how this thread has morphed into the same discussion as the "so when is a wing legal in IT" thread I started several months ago. Given the uncertainty of the topic, and the fact that the topic can carry pages worth of discussion, I think it would be a good time to start to clean up this rule.

R

[Knestis]

Dude - I honestly DON'T even THINK I know the answer in this case. Yeah, the rules say what they say, but WHAT they say is dependent on how we define "model." I know what I've generally understood to this point - that "model" is defined by "spec line" - but I'm calling my own interpretations into question.

Interestingly, a quick trip in the Wayback Machine to the very first IT rules...

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/downloads/ThisisIT.pdf

...shows that:

"Updating and backdating of engine, drive train, and brakes is permitted within the same make/model/engine size of car."

No reference to "assemblies," and no evidence of a prohibition against creating a model. Both of those clauses got added later to "clarify" the rule, so were certainly not among the Founding Fathers' first assumptions.

I don't think we can know with much confidence how those various pieces of the rules are supposed to reconcile among themselves at this point.

K

[Gary L]

OKAY - Riddle me this, Batman...

IF substantially different parts (e.g., bumpers) define one model as distinct from another model, AND we can't put SOME of the parts from one model on another model without creating a model that never existed, THEN why even have the update/backdate rule that defines "assemblies" as the basis for updating/backdating...?

The only allowance for updating/backdating consistent with the assumptions being presented here would require updating/backdating ANY AND ALL parts/assemblies that are different, or none at all. And THAT wouldn't have been legal under the VIN rule restriction, since the VIN defines a model because it's year-specific.

Hmmm?

Kirk (who's increasingly baffled by the great inconsistencies here, between what he thought he understood and what is being presented here)

We don't (didn't) need the VIN rule to ascribe year-specificity. Even with the VIN rule gone, you still must at some point, declare what "model" you've built, to include the year. Why? Because for starters, we could otherwise build cars that are older than 1968, or newer than current MY+4. Secondly, we could otherwise present a bogus factory shop manual, which is clearly year-specific IAW 9.1.3.C:

To establish the originality and configuration of the vehicle, each driver/entrant shall have a factory shop manual for the specific make, model, and year of the automobile. This manual shall be presented when so requested at any technical inspection.