Teach me about ITR 325's

[Greg Amy]

Here we go again......

https://improvedtouring.com...ad.php?t=12163

Start there.

BTW, the Autotechnica photo links on the first page no longer work. But, remember, nothing on the web ever disappears. Just add "http://web.archive.org/web/20050404233644" in front of the failed links, such as:

http://web.archive.org/web/200504042.../gallery/car11

[Olson-RRT]

https://improvedtouring.com...ad.php?t=12163

Start there.

BTW,

Wow. Just, wow. Seems things were wound a bit tight five years ago. Got a few replies down and couldn't deal with reading any more.

They are reinforcing the subframe itself, not the chassis mounting point. The pics in the link to the old post are not the reinforcement, or repair, I am referring to. Again, please look here to see what I am talking about:

http://rrtracing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=223


Jeff, understand where you are coming from just a *bit* more now.

[Greg Amy]

Seems things were wound a bit tight five years ago.

Five years ago...? Well, I guess we've moved a lot of our tight-woundedness to the Sandbox...

Anyway...to summarize that thread, Matthew...I don't know enough about what I'm looking at to defend or contradict what you're trying to say. But, generally speaking, you can do whatever the factory did when they built the car, whatever your factory shop manual shows as an acceptable repair for the car, and whatever any technical service bulletins shows as an acceptable repair for the car.

The safest and most-legal action, of course, is to replace that whole ripped panel with a new one from the factory.

However, if at any time you perform a "repair" that deviates from original build or any of those official records, you are illegal. One thing that stuck out on that link you posted is "This is an E46 M3 Competition Package shown." Without further knowledge, that implies to me to be illegal to the IT rules.

Make it back to stock, and you're legal. Deviate from stock and you're treading on thin ice.

GA

[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.

[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?

[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.

[JoshS]

So I think I read through all of that, and I've known about this repair for years from the BMW forums, but I still have never seen any factory directive about its use to reinforce cars that didn't come with the reinforcement from the factory. Near as I can tell, only M3s came with it from the factory. Not the 325i, not the 328i. Those reinforcement plates are not listed as superceded parts for anything either, since they are additional parts, not replacement parts. Seems to me that someone just "figured out" that the M3 had reinforcement that the non-Ms didn't have, so it became the de-facto way to repair this problem.

So quickly, did any factory documentation ever turn up?