Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 230

Thread: Teach me about ITR 325's

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ligonier, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post
    Oh my goodness!!!

    You mean the designers of The Ultimate Driving Machine have made an engineering error that leads to their creation having a perceived flaw for track use?

    No way, I don't believe it. All the BMW Club track days start out with "Your BMW was born and bred for the track, it'll be fine to use just as is...."

    Heaven forbid we get uneven pad wear and a really squishy pedal.....Jeez, I wish that was all I had to worry about on my IT dinosaur.
    Easy Ron, I don't want to see you stroke out on us.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Bro View Post
    And air as a bushing is justifiable in your mind....give me a break. Is air then justifiable as a washer bottle or wiring harness in your mind?

    R
    Can you cite someone/some car who actually does this and claims it's legal? I think it's bantered about but in reality it's internet folklore.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    cromwell ct
    Posts
    746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    Can you cite someone/some car who actually does this and claims it's legal? I think it's bantered about but in reality it's internet folklore.

    No AB. I know no one. But I remember the discussions about it ad nauseum, as I know you do.

    My comments were only directed at the fact that the GCR offers no clarity on the questions I posed. Next thing you know I'm a rules creeper. As I stated mine are stock rubber, period. Reminds me of the RX7 1st gen rear wing guy.....easy to see why he made the mistake....even easier to see why he got beat up here. I guess I learned my lesson....I'll spend more time with my family and less time on IT.com. I'll let the "pro's" chase windmills.

    R
    Rob Breault
    BMW 328is #36
    2008 Driving Impressions Pro-ITA Champion
    2008 NARRC DP Champion
    2009 NARRC ITR Champion
    2009 Team DI Pro-ITR Champion

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    *I* don't feel like the GCR has to offer clarity to the questions you posed Rob, because *I* don't feel you have posed reasonable questions.

    The bushings on your racecar are not free. Suspensions bushings may be replaced. Has nothing to do with brakes. By your logic, engine mounts would be free because they are bushings. Just not true.

    The section of the ITCS in which an allowance is given IS applicable.
    Last edited by Andy Bettencourt; 02-16-2009 at 11:05 AM. Reason: Trying to be more PC...
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Boca Raton, FL. USA; CFR/FR
    Posts
    162

    Default

    Thanks for the great read on a Monday morning.

    Reminds me of the golden days of IT.
    ITR #41 '93 BMW E36 CFR/FR

    "All My Ex's Have Rolex's"

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    532

    Default

    While we're kicking this can down the road, I would like to mention one of my pet peeves. There is a word that is used a lot in this forum that sometimes only adds to the confusion hereabouts... the word is "free", as in "...bushings are free", "pads are free", etc, etc.

    The word "free" does not exist in the ITCS, and to my knowledge, never has. Since the word "free" means many things to many people, and since it is not in the ITCS, I would suggest we quit using it.
    Gary Learned
    MiDiv
    Volvo 142E
    http://www.youtube.com/user/denrael

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    alexandria, va
    Posts
    851

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoshS View Post
    Here you go Mike:

    http://www.turnermotorsport.com/html...ODUCT_ID=CBMW1

    The issue is that all of these cars have single-piston sliding calipers, and the caliper slides on metal pin, but with a rubber bushing. The brake can feel really squishy and cause uneven pad wear due to the flexibility in the rubber, especially as the pads get low and the piston is extended.

    These metal replacements are very common for track cars and BMWCCA club racing.
    there are ways to avoid squishy pedal and angled pad wear as they get low without using illegal metal bushings.....

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoshS View Post
    I've never seen any acknowledgement by BMW for the diff mount/trunk floor problem, just like I've never seen anything for the E36 problem.

    Therefore, such a dealer-installed repair would not be legal in IT, even if a verbal agreement with a BMWNA employee allowed BMWNA to pay for the repair.
    Just because the GCR mandates that the manufactures provide XYZ (in this case it's a document stating dealer repair methods) to a racer doesn't mean that the manufacturer will. In this case of drastice chassis repairs, there is probably legal liability reasons for the absense of such a document along with proprietary reasons. Just because the document doesn't exist doesn't means it strictly illegal either.
    STU BMW Z3 2.5liter

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar View Post
    Just because the document doesn't exist doesn't means it strictly illegal either.
    Then how do you know how to perform the repair?
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar View Post
    Just because the document doesn't exist doesn't means it strictly illegal either.
    Actually, James, per the explicit rules it means exactly that....



    GA

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Wow...never knew THIS was where the rules and regs soap opera went!

    For the record, Air bushings. It is said that RX-7s (early cars like mine), when lowered will bind the rear axle and destroy U joints. That's because the stock upper trailing arm pulls the axle forward at teh top at that point in it's travel. The rules allow the addition of traction bars, and with a properly designed traction bar, one can do what you wouldn't normally think of: use really soft bushings as opposed to the typical hard replacements, in the upper trailing arms. This allows the axle to rise and fall without twisting forward, and removes the binding.

    Now, I haven't crawled under anyone's RX-7 in a long long time, but rumour has it that not only are the bushings just not replaced at all, but the upper trailing arms are just left off certain cars. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me, but, at the front, my bet is all RX-7s are legal. Mine runs hard foam in the upper trailing arm bushing locations. (I can't imagine the racket air would create if used as a bushing!)

    Air bushings? Silly boys!
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  12. #72
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    A bushing made of closed-cell foam would in fact be a composite of an elastic material and air. Not a problem under the current regime. Removing the [whatever] altogether would be OK if the rule allowed replacement or "removal." Remember some rules (e.g., the sway bar allowance) didn't actually allow that, although in this example the language was changed.

    We should all - myself included - read Gary's really good point a few more times.

    K

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post

    The RX-7 had many different (both high and low production versions) that make up the ITS RX-7. The big brakes came on many versions, the rear wing on even more and the non PS cars were actually the lower end units. The 5th gear was indeed from the GTUs of which plenty were made in 1989 but just 100 in 1990.
    It has been pointed out to me offline that I may have inferred that ITS RX-7 drivers were creating a model that didn't exist by cherry-picking the best stuff from different models. What I was trying to do for Rob was to show him that the items he listed for the most part, were not low production stuff and indeed available on all RX-7's.

    The model that is being created is the 89-90 GTUs. The desirable part from this model is the 5th gear ratio (.76 instead of .71). And even at that number, it is worse than most everything in ITS.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Brookfield, CT. USA
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    It has been pointed out to me offline that I may have inferred that ITS RX-7 drivers were creating a model that didn't exist by cherry-picking the best stuff from different models. What I was trying to do for Rob was to show him that the items he listed for the most part, were not low production stuff and indeed available on all RX-7's.

    The model that is being created is the 89-90 GTUs. The desirable part from this model is the 5th gear ratio (.76 instead of .71). And even at that number, it is worse than most everything in ITS.
    My opinion is when you can change so many pieces and create a parts room model that exceeds the model that was classified then there should be a re-evaluation. I think that some of these RX-7 models should be on an individual spec line just like the 92 325i should be on a different spec line from the 93-95 325i
    Rob Driscoll
    ITS 25
    NER

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Rob, on the BMW, is that due to OBDI v. OBDII? Or is it some other fundamental differences between the two different groups of model years?

    I'm just curious, didn't realize there were differences in the E36 run.

    Thanks.

    Jeff
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robits325is View Post
    My opinion is when you can change so many pieces and create a parts room model that exceeds the model that was classified then there should be a re-evaluation.
    But you are infering by saying 'parts room model' that what is on track never existed when in fact, peple are creating the 1989-1990 GTUs. Here are some facts for you:

    It has no more HP than ANY other 89-91 RX-7
    It has the SAME brakes as the GXL
    It has the same rear wing as the GTU and GXL

    The differences were a 4.30 viscous (vs 4.10 open) and the slightly upgraded 5th gear of that the only thing applicable to IT racing is the transmission...and oh yes, it did have an aluminum hood that it shared with the convertible.

    And it wasn't limited production like the MT 325. Only about 1100 were made but that was due to lack of demand, not a limited production run. It was a fully documented model in the brochures.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Brookfield, CT. USA
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
    Rob, on the BMW, is that due to OBDI v. OBDII? Or is it some other fundamental differences between the two different groups of model years?

    I'm just curious, didn't realize there were differences in the E36 run.

    Thanks.

    Jeff
    The 92 had different engine internals; springs, pistons, non-vanos, and different cams as well as a different ECU and harness (eliminated by the ECU rule now)
    Rob Driscoll
    ITS 25
    NER

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robits325is View Post
    My opinion is when you can change so many pieces and create a parts room model that exceeds the model that was classified then there should be a re-evaluation. I think that some of these RX-7 models should be on an individual spec line just like the 92 325i should be on a different spec line from the 93-95 325i
    All that would do is split out the 86-88 Rx7s which would have to be at a lower weight due to the lower horsepower.
    dick patullo
    ner scca IT7 Rx7

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dickita15 View Post
    All that would do is split out the 86-88 Rx7s which would have to be at a lower weight due to the lower horsepower.
    Yup - 146hp. 2450 in ITS (never get there) or 2750 in ITA!!! Now THERE is an interesting idea...
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Brookfield, CT. USA
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    Yup - 146hp. 2450 in ITS (never get there) or 2750 in ITA!!! Now THERE is an interesting idea...
    According to post #76 the horsepower on the "lesser" models is the same? or did I read that between the lines?
    Rob Driscoll
    ITS 25
    NER

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •