E36 Safety and IT

[mr. black]

I was wondering if anyone wanted to weigh in on this. I recently did an event with NASA. They have started a Spec3 ("SpecE36") class. One of the requirments is that the shock/strut towers, subframe, rear control arms, and mounting points be reinforced. I was told that this was purely for safety to reinforce known weak points and the parts are all BMW stamped items. As far as I can tell, IT does not allow for these upgrades. Is IT overlooking a potential safety issue? Any opinions?

[joeg]

No provision in our rules for special reinforcement. If the cage is designed properly, a number of those problems are resolved.

Too much of an opensesme to stuff like seam welding and plating.

[Greg Amy]

As far as I can tell, IT does not allow for these upgrades. Is IT overlooking a potential safety issue? Any opinions?

"Overlooking"? Of course not. This is simply a disallowed modification.

First, you're assuming it's truly a safety issue, versus someone's idea of things that are wanted. But we'll got with that.

Second, you're assuming all "safety-related" issues should be addressed by the sanctioning body, versus leaving the responsibility for ensuring safety to the competitor. Were we to go that route are we going to allow Rabbits to change hubs? 944s to change control arms? E36s to reinforce rear subframes? Who's going to determine what's "safety" and what's "wanted"? Who's going to enforce it? "Warts and all", and all that.

Third, something like this is REAL easy to do in a Spec class: they're all the same cars.

Nope, sorry, but every time someone promotes a modification on the basis of "safety", it's rarely that. If this is truly a safety issue, it is the responsibility of the competitor(s) to educate him/herself to that issue and address it per the rules and manufacturer documentation.

GA

[Doc Bro]

"Overlooking"? Of course not. This is simply a disallowed modification.

First, you're assuming it's truly a safety issue, versus someone's idea of things that are wanted. But we'll got with that.

Second, you're assuming all "safety-related" issues should be addressed by the sanctioning body, versus leaving the responsibility for ensuring safety to the competitor. Were we to go that route are we going to allow Rabbits to change hubs? 944s to change control arms? E36s to reinforce rear subframes? Who's going to determine what's "safety" and what's "wanted"? Who's going to enforce it? "Warts and all", and all that.

Third, something like this is REAL easy to do in a Spec class: they're all the same cars.

Nope, sorry, but every time someone promotes a modification on the basis of "safety", it's rarely that. If this is truly a safety issue, it is the responsibility of the competitor(s) to educate him/herself to that issue and address it per the rules and manufacturer documentation.

GA

Agreed 100%. I'd love to have my rear suspension all reinforced and tied in, but if I wanted it that bad I'd go BMWCCA where it's allowed. You just have to know your cars weak points and constantly check them. When (if) they fail repair them legally.

R

[Ed Funk]

How do you really feel, Greg?

[mr. black]

I haven't really assumed anything. I just wanted to see the other side of things. The lower control arms on the E36 are relatively flimsy, but the subframe looks fine to me. I've owned four BMW's and have full confidence in their safety and build quality. But, we're all racers and there seems to always be counter arguments to safety whether it car modification, neck restraint systems, etc. I rarely see homogenization of safety standards across sanctioning bodies unless it's commercial equipment and gear.

[seckerich]

Plus it keeps the customer from crossing over to ITR.

[gsbaker]

Plus it keeps the customer from crossing over to ITR.

Bingo.

They idea that that manufacturer's designs are structurally lacking is amusing.

[shwah]

Now there is a conspiracy theory that I might buy.

[JoshS]

Bingo.

They idea that that manufacturer's designs are structurally lacking is amusing.

Well, to be fair, there are REAL issues. BMW very recently settled a class-action suit with E46 owners because the unibody fails where the rear subframe mounts, and there is now factory guidance on how to reinforce the unibody at those locations (it involves using structural foam.) Exactly the same sort of structural failure happens on both the E36 and Z3 chassis too, although unfortunately they aren't included in the settlement. It's as though BMW engineers just don't know how to build a chassis that can hold a rear subframe without breaking apart. These failures are relatively common on street cars.

Likewise, the front control arm failures are well-documented -- they have embedded ball joints for the inner pivot and these fail regularly. Racing guidance suggests replacing them every season or two. Likewise there are weaknesses that have shown themselves on racing cars again and again with E36 front subframes, E30/Z3 rear trailing arms, etc.

I'm not lobbying for any sort of rule change. We live with these things and lots of manufacturers have these sorts of struggles. I'm just pointing out that it's not as though these are all performance issues masquerading as safety issues. In a lot of ways, many street cars, especially once they get up there in miles, are not up to the task of racing, or in some cases, even driving around on potholed streets.