Teach me about ITR 325's

[Gary L]

I disagree. All that was being shown in the spec line is the allowed daimeters. Yes, they happen to be mostly stock but some Porsche's and the RX-7's are not allowed to use stock diameter either. It's not unique.

I assume you're talking about the ITS cars, right? I feel compelled to point out that "some Porsche's" and "the RX-7's" you reference have entries in the Notes column that very clearly spell out those limitations. I see no such note associated with the 325. It is, therefore - unique.

So you're telling me that when the 325i/is was classified (in ITS), the M-Technic was intended to be included, but the classifying body forgot it came on 17's? Or was it that they knew it came on 17's, but forgot to exclude them? Or what?

Finally, your phrase "...they happen to be mostly stock" is telling, to say the least. Does the column entitled "Wheel Dia." mean anything, or not? If not (and that certainly appears to be the case, particularly in ITR), then we need to eliminate the column. It's confusing the Hell out of us farm kids.

[JoshS]

I agree that the column doesn't really need to be there, Gary. But the wheel rules are "clear": you can use only your stock-sized wheels. If your car came with 12" wheels, you can use 13" wheels. But then, if your stock wheels were 12"-14", you can use up to 15". Except in ITR, where anyone can use up to 17", unless your wheels were larger than 17", in which case you can use your stock size too. Oh, but check the spec line, because you can't go smaller than what's listed there.

Or something like that. What a mess! And all of that about wheel diameter? Does anyone think that wheel DIAMETER matters that much?

I personally think that we should allow any size wheel, any diameter and any width too, in all 5 IT classes. Of course, we still have limitations on fender mods, and I'd keep the rule about "tread under the fender" too. So there's an effective limit.

I have three reasons for proposing the change: 1) the existing rules are just one rule layered on another layered on another. It's quite confusing. 2) The wheel sizes are the ONLY difference in prep allowances between the IT classes. The only one. I'd like to get rid of that blight on the ruleset and have all of the IT classes have identical rules. 3) We increasingly hear that it's harder and harder to find wheels for some of the older listings.

[dj10]

well Dudes, :d This Is A Big Deal The Fact That Itr Allows 17" Wheels Is Irrelevant And Immaterial.

headshot.gif

[Greg Amy]

Gary (and Derek) have valid points. But, we've argued this before and gotten nowhere.

Josh, that point is, it's not about the wheels; it's about the "limited production front/rear spoilers/air dams" clause. Which, just like the printed wheel sizes (and the "popular, inexpensive cars", and the written requirement to "re-evaluate" cars after the second, third, and fourth year of eligibility), is pretty much a generally-ignored, and thus moot, rule.

- GA

[madrabbit15]

Please understand I mean no harm by talking about this subject, nor am I trying to say anyone has an illegal car.

Again, I am still trying hard to understand this. I have seen post after post for years, where everyone gets so nit picky about rules, (I think a little to much). But then we come to an issue where the GCR clearly says no "limited production" items, and there are more arguments posting for then against it.

My logic is this..... brass caliper bushings.......GCR doesnt say you cant do it, but we all know if it doesnt say you can, then you cant. Numerous folks sign on here and swear if you come to their region their gonna get you. Now we have something the GCR clearly says you cannot do, but wait, the same folks are saying this limited production model is part of the spec line or some other reason.

Really? I am sorry guys, there is a lot of logic on here does not make any sense. Hello pot heres kettle...... I would never try to protest anyone for this, as it was pointed out, it really does not matter, performance wise, but the GCR does say..... I think I will just keep my run of the mill stuff on my car.

Thanks for everyones input. Look at it this way, if all we have to argue about is a bumper cover that is only on a hand full of cars, then IT cant be too bad.

Derek

[Spinnetti]

I agree that the column doesn't really need to be there, Gary. But the wheel rules are "clear": you can use only your stock-sized wheels. If your car came with 12" wheels, you can use 13" wheels. But then, if your stock wheels were 12"-14", you can use up to 15". Except in ITR, where anyone can use up to 17", unless your wheels were larger than 17", in which case you can use your stock size too. Oh, but check the spec line, because you can't go smaller than what's listed there.

Or something like that. What a mess! And all of that about wheel diameter? Does anyone think that wheel DIAMETER matters that much?

I personally think that we should allow any size wheel, any diameter and any width too, in all 5 IT classes. Of course, we still have limitations on fender mods, and I'd keep the rule about "tread under the fender" too. So there's an effective limit.

I have three reasons for proposing the change: 1) the existing rules are just one rule layered on another layered on another. It's quite confusing. 2) The wheel sizes are the ONLY difference in prep allowances between the IT classes. The only one. I'd like to get rid of that blight on the ruleset and have all of the IT classes have identical rules. 3) We increasingly hear that it's harder and harder to find wheels for some of the older listings.

I second that.. Should be able to run whatever wheel size you want that will fit per the other rules around wheel fitment. BTW, diameter does matter quite a bit, but if everybody can size as they like, we all get to experiment as we like, and there are trade offs both ways

I also don't get the cage rules.. The club is already nuts about safety, yet you only get the 8 attachment points... should be able to do what you want within the passenger compartment since you will be adding weight anyway to counterbalance stiffness gains.

[seckerich]

COOOOOOOL, a witch hunt and no Madza!!

[Knestis]

The rule says "Dealer installed or limited production front/rear spoilers/air dams/wings are prohibited."

To inject a little clarity, I think this is a typical e36 front end...



... and I *think* this is the MTechnic front end, right?



If that much is accurate, and if in fact BMW only built 150 e36 325s and/or 328s with that front end, then it seems to me like it's probably OUTSIDE of the rules:

** The thing that's different between the two cars is quite reasonably a "front spoiler"

** 150 (accepting that number) seems by any sensible definition "limited production."

** It's not really material, I don't think, that the spoiler is part of - or connected to - another part.

But for the 1000th time, this is an enforcement issue not a rule issue. File a protest, get an answer.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

** The thing that's different between the two cars is quite reasonably a "front spoiler"

K

But it isn't a 'spoiler', it's a entire bumper cover.

I see the issues. I just think that a limited production 'model' is NOT ILLEGAL. The rules do NOT say that 'limited production items' are illegal as Derek broadly sweeps if I read his post right.

The question comes down to what you call the part. I'll call it a bumper cover that is legal to update - that came on a limited production car that is on the E36 325 spec lines in ITS and ITR.

Again, it has been said that this car has different suspension reinforcements than a plain old 325. If that is the case, then the car needs to be addressed.

[ekim952522000]

2) The wheel sizes are the ONLY difference in prep allowances between the IT classes. The only one. I'd like to get rid of that blight on the ruleset and have all of the IT classes have identical rules.

In your idea would each class would still have a width limit?

I do think that there is no reason to limit wheel diameter and actually think it might make it harder to class cars equally.

It would be much simplier if you could just say max wheel is

ITC - 6"
ITB - 6"
ITA - 7"
ITS - 7"
ITR - 8.5"

Instead of the very long confusing paragraph it is now.

[JoshS]

In your idea would each class would still have a width limit?

Greg was right, I inadvertantly changed the subject, but since it's done ...

No, I'd get rid of the width limitations too. Cars would be limited only by what fits under the unmodified fenders.

[ekim952522000]

Greg was right, I inadvertantly changed the subject, but since it's done ...

Since when has this thread ever been on subject

No, I'd get rid of the width limitations too. Cars would be limited only by what fits under the unmodified fenders.

The positive to this is that all of the class rules would be exactly the same.

The major con is what about all the ITB cars with 6" wheels I am sure they would all want to upgrade to 8-9" wheels that would add a lot of cost.

[dj10]

Are you saying; if I had a e36 325 m technic it would be illegal to race in ITR because of it being a limited production? I read the entire IT GCR and it doesn't say anything about limited production. If some finds the page where it might mention it, please let me know.

[Knestis]

Remember of course that the spoiler/wing/whatever rule predates unitary plastic bumpers. I'm reading this one not through 1985 eyes but through 2005 eyes.

I don't actually know - is the lip of the desirable version a separate PIECE from the rest of the bumper cover? If it isn't, does that change your interpretation, Andy? I'm splitting hairs here but the argument that it's OK seems to require that kind of parsing of language.

K

[Doc Bro]

I don't actually know - is the lip of the desirable version a separate PIECE from the rest of the bumper cover?K

It is separate and removable. And, more importantly it is OUTSIDE of the bumper when looking straight down, sooo, it really is a moot point because although it is a stock factory piece it is illegal under the current rule. If you want to run the "bumper (cover) of the gods" you gotta do it without the lip.

Secondly Kirk you implied the 328 in the 325MT debate which it shouldn't be. The 328 was not available in the MT package (at least not in the US from my research). The 328 gets "the bumper" from the 99is sport package which was not dealer installed or limited production. It also does not have the lower meshwork that the MT bumper cover has.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Remember of course that the spoiler/wing/whatever rule predates unitary plastic bumpers. I'm reading this one not through 1985 eyes but through 2005 eyes.

I don't actually know - is the lip of the desirable version a separate PIECE from the rest of the bumper cover? If it isn't, does that change your interpretation, Andy? I'm splitting hairs here but the argument that it's OK seems to require that kind of parsing of language.

K

It doesn't because the whole unit is what came on the car. As Dan said...if someone was to use an MT as a donor...the car would be perfectly legal as well as all the parts on it. And since that is the case, UD/BD is a go.

If we need to expand 'limited production' to models and not just front and/or rear spoilers (because that is all it is right now), then so be it - but without that, this is perfectly legal IMHO.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob brings up an interesting point. I will have to look back at pictures of my '95 M3, but what if a stock piece exceeds the design limitations of the ITCS?

Should it be legal to run that piece? Does the ITCS impose limitations ONLY IF you are ADDING that modification to your car when it didn't have it to begin with? Wheel diameter rule would say otherwise...

That lip is not anymore 'removable' than anything else that has to be unbolted...saying it is a seperate piece of a larger unit is more accurate.

[dj10]

It is separate and removable. And, more importantly it is OUTSIDE of the bumper when looking straight down, sooo, it really is a moot point because although it is a stock factory piece it is illegal under the current rule. If you want to run the "bumper (cover) of the gods" you gotta do it without the lip.
R

R,
Nobody that I've seen that use the M Technic front "bumper cover" uses the black splitter piece because it sticks out to far for the rules.

R, I'm not quite sure what your trying to say here? "If you want to run the "bumper (cover) of the gods" you gotta do it without the lip. "

[dj10]

It is separate and removable. And, more importantly it is OUTSIDE of the bumper when looking straight down, sooo, it really is a moot point because although it is a stock factory piece it is illegal under the current rule. If you want to run the "bumper (cover) of the gods" you gotta do it without the lip.
R

R,
Nobody that I've seen that uses the M Technic front "bumper cover" uses the black splitter piece because it sticks out to far for the rules.

R, I'm not quite sure what your trying to say here? "If you want to run the "bumper (cover) of the gods" you gotta do it without the lip. "

[JoshS]

Rob brings up an interesting point. I will have to look back at pictures of my '95 M3, but what if a stock piece exceeds the design limitations of the ITCS?

Should it be legal to run that piece? Does the ITCS impose limitations ONLY IF you are ADDING that modification to your car when it didn't have it to begin with? Wheel diameter rule would say otherwise...

We discussed that with respect to the rear shocks on the S2000. The general pricinciple, I believe, is that stock parts are always fine, but any changes made to the car under the ITCS allowances have to meet the specification of that allowance.

The wheel diameter rules do allow stock wheels, as far as I can tell. But the WIDTH rules are inflexible in that way, and probably violate the principle.