BMW E36 (ITS) Ring sizes?

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 12 2005, 12:01 AM
  Cars have to be classified based upon their potential and if their potential is unknown it has to be speculated upon based upon known factors. 

[snapback]65200[/snapback]​

Define a "known factor" on a car that is newly classified and just finished its first full year of IT eligibility. Apples to apple or apples to oranges. A Z3 compared to a known Integra is apples to oranges with all due respect. No one truly knows the potential of a Z3. Myself included admittedly. My stance is based on the fact that its "potential" is overestimated relative to its weight. My opinion is based on the fact that I (and Noam, and the 2 other guys in the US ambitious enough to take on this car) have done more research on it than anyone in the ITAC or CRB that's all. My point is that the huge cost and countless hours needed to prove this point are solely the burden of the competitor. The ITAC can use a (forgive me) "mysterious" formula, have the power of veto ( by saying "yes but you don't have Motec or xxx) and it's the carowners responsibility to $$$prove$$$ them wrong if that is possible. I guess it's the ambiguity that confuses me If this is just my naivity please forgive me. It's never been my contention to offend anyone. I feel that this is sort of a case of "you can't fight Capitol Hill".

If I am out of line please just tell me what % increase was used in classifying the Z3, and what evidence was used to derive that number.

PS iI too run a passenger seat and spare tire to make weight.

Rob "still trying to learn the system" Breault

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Nov 11 2005, 09:42 PM
No one truly knows the potential of a Z3.  Myself included admittedly.  My stance is based on the fact that its "potential" is overestimated relative to its weight.  My opinion is based on the fact that I (and Noam, and the 2 other guys in the US ambitious enough to take on this car) have done more research on it than anyone in the ITAC or CRB that's all.  My point is that the huge cost and countless hours needed to prove this point are solely the burden of the competitor.  The ITAC can use a (forgive me) "mysterious" formula, have the power of veto ( by saying "yes but you don't have Motec or xxx) and it's the carowners responsibility to $$$prove$$$ them wrong if that is possible. I guess it's the ambiguity that confuses me  If this is just my naivity please forgive me.  It's never been my contention to offend anyone.  I feel that this is sort of a case of "you can't fight Capitol Hill".

If I am out of line please just tell me what % increase was used in classifying the Z3, and what evidence was used to derive that number. 

PS iI too run a passenger seat and spare tire to make weight.

Rob "still trying to learn the system" Breault

[snapback]65205[/snapback]​

Rob,

No issues here. You are on a journey and are asking questions as you come to them...so be it. The great thing about this ITAC is that we have a process that we can (at the very least) defend.

1. If you don't know the true potential of the Z3, then I don't see how you can state that the weight is wrong. What basis could you? If the true potential is not known, then *I* submit that a conservative approach to classification should be taken. Not one that handicapps the car, but one that puts it in the target zone - without potential for creating 'THE CAR'. REMEMBER, the cars you see now on top of ITA have NOT been run through this process. We are trying to get thet approved at the BoD level as we type.

2. It's "potential" is key to setting it's weight. IIRC, we used the standard 25% increase with IT prep to estimate HP. It's a very common increase with the mods we can do. Some get lower, some get higher, but neither can be proven until development has been done. Curb weight has nothing to do with race weight...just to reiterate that.

3. I am glad you know more about the Z3 than anyone on the committee, you should. I know more about 2nd gen RX-7's and Miata's than anyone on the committee...we should all be experts in our own 'field'.

4. You can fight the ITAC/CRB all you want, but I contend that you haven't armed yourself with enough bullets to shoot any holes in our 'estimate'.

Keep 'em coming...a healthy debate is what this site is for...

AB

 

[Doc Bro]

Andy,
I am humbled by your response as I had hoped to be...I guess.. Your points are more than valid and I knew them going into this discussion. I am not at all embarassed by my "green-ness". I need to understand the process before I can mount an all out attack on the establishment.
I would much rather be the guy that says the M44 motor is capable of 180hp......prove me wrong.
In my opinion that guy is the ITAC. I hope that that illustrates my fruastration.

I love racing, I love spending race weekends with my friends and family, I love knowing I run a legal car. I would also love to have a shot at hoisting a checkered out my left window.

If you look back on my post no one has responded to my hard questions. How is 25% gain assigned arbitrarily to all cars? How does one prove something is not possible or does not exist without spending a small fortune? This fortune will not yield a hp gain but just merely a rule change. It seems like guilty until proven innocent to me....
I do applaud the members of the ITAC specifically you George, Jake and Darin as I do believe as gentlemen and competitors your only goal is the spirit of fair competition. However, reel the Acura's, Honda's and Nissan's in soon or take my post with more than a grain of salt. The Z3 is a newly classed car and really for all practicality doesn't stand a chance against a "spec Serra" with all do respect.
Please don't let another season go by that so blatantly favors the Acura's, Nissan's and Honda's.

Thank you,
Rob

 

[Joe Harlan]

Please don't let another season go by that so blatantly favors the Acura's, Nissan's and Honda's.

Thank you,
Rob

Rob I can follow your argument even in the wrong thread right up until you make it personal toward other marques that have done their homework and spent bundles of money development and test time to get their. You would like to be made a front runner in a showroom stock car and that ain't gonna happen. I would suggest you start a thread with some basic facts about the car YOUchoose to drive and offer up some information on the car like engine size factory ratings and capacity, Valve size, engine design, Single Vanos double Vanos ect. I will give you a word of advice that you really should consider. Being a pioneer is gonna be hard and expensive and all the questioning of the adhoc or the CRB will not make that part any better. The facts are plain and simple and others tend to be to poilte to say it. You have not put forth much effort in the development of this car to make any case that the estimates are wrong. I don't believe I have seen any dyno numbers provided for your car and it's list of developmental changes to get their. There has to be a place to start and I think Adhoc has worked very hard to come up with a reasoned set of guidelines to work from. NO SYSTEM WILL EVER BE PERFECT and fortunately there is a little room for correction now. (thanks to the current open group of open minded adhoc and crb folks)

I would propose that you take a long hard look at the idea of developing a new model car cause from your posts I would suggest you don't have the stomach for it.

 

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 12 2005, 04:28 AM
Rob I can follow your argument even in the wrong thread right up until you make it personal toward other marques that have done their homework and spent bundles of money development and test time to get their. You would like to be made a front runner in a showroom stock car and that ain't gonna happen. I would suggest you start a thread with some basic facts about the car YOUchoose to drive and offer up some information on the car like engine size factory ratings and capacity, Valve size, engine design, Single Vanos double Vanos ect.  I will give you a word of advice that you really should consider. Being a pioneer is gonna be hard and expensive and all the questioning of the adhoc or the CRB will not make that part any better. The facts are plain and simple and others tend to be to poilte to say it. You have not put forth much effort in the development of this car to make any case that the estimates are wrong. I don't believe I have seen any dyno numbers provided for your car and it's list of developmental changes to get their. There has to be a place to start and I think Adhoc has worked very hard to come up with a reasoned set of guidelines to work from. NO SYSTEM WILL EVER BE PERFECT and fortunately there is a little room for correction now. (thanks to the current open group of open minded adhoc and crb folks)

I would propose that you take a long hard look at the idea of developing a new model car cause from your posts I would suggest you don't have the stomach for it.

[snapback]65213[/snapback]​

Joe,
You must not have read the evolution of this forum...... I hope. You must drive one of the aforementioned cars. Looking at the numbers they don't fit...period. No ITAC member will argue this. I've been quite clear on my mods and true I have no dyno #'s I wil soon....Forgive me my mouth piece is in front of my dyno schedule. The results will be posted as I intend to be as public as possible. I guess Joe, with all due respect I can't follow your train of thought. My intention was to understand the system if you read my post I was never accusatory. I was looking for fairness in regards to the system. I am sorry if you missed that. I have no regeret or remorse for saying that Acura's, Honda's or Nissan's have not been through the new process and therefore have an advantage. I doubt you will have many believers....I am sorry but it is true.

With all do respect,

Rob

 

[Joe Harlan]

No Rob, I don't race any of the cars you are saying have a built in advantage. If thats how you think then you are beat before you even get off the truck. I have built many nissans and raced against many acura's and honda's. The reson the development has gone so well on those cars is their was lots of folks doing them. Th e ITA 240sx was not a real popular piece until Stretch spend the time and money to develop one and prove it could win. Sorry but I did read the whole thread which started out as a thread about rings and that's part of the response you got from me.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Nov 11 2005, 09:34 AM
EXACTLY MY POINT!!
........
+6 to reflash the computer (given it matches to the ambient conditions every weekend)

.........

Sorry for the hijack on this thread...it is because I am struggling to find info from BMW too!!!!
Rob

[snapback]65159[/snapback]​

Hey Rob,

Look what I found on the OBDII

318ti OBDII Article

Looks like any attempt to change OBDII is fruitless for the M-44. I suspose that's why J.Conforti hasn't produced any software for it, and the only thing Dinan gives you is an increased rev limit and nothing else. I know someone who was all prepared to buy the Dinan software and was talked out of it by the sales guy. Best thing that can be done to the M44 is to plant the Downing Antlanta Supercharger kit on it

I'm saying a custom header won't give you much when that's not what limits the engine. Actually the stock manifold is a 4-2-1 and tuned to go with the two stage intake. which means that it's about as good as it gets optimation wise. I think the real limit in this engine is the cams/lifters/valve springs. If we could tune for more revs then we'd see an increase in naturally asperated power. Bottom end wise I'd think it could routinely handle 7-7.5k rpms given a good set of baffles and an accusump.

James

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 11 2005, 01:06 PM
A 30 second trip to Tirerack.com showed ASA AR1's in 16x7 for 169 each for the Z3 1.9.

AB

[snapback]65177[/snapback]​

Those are Korean knock offs of BBS wheels made under license. They weight 21lbs each, not exactlyrace weight. You'd be better off staying with the style 35's that came with the 1.9'er which are about 17lbs each.

James

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Nov 11 2005, 10:19 PM
Hey Rob,

Look what I found on the OBDII

318ti OBDII Article

Looks like any attempt to change OBDII is fruitless for the M-44.  I suspose that's why J.Conforti hasn't produced any software for it, and the only thing Dinan gives you is an increased rev limit and nothing else.  I know someone who was all prepared to buy the Dinan software and was talked out of it by the sales guy.  Best thing that can be done to the M44 is to plant the Downing Antlanta Supercharger kit on it 

I'm saying a custom header won't give you much when that's not what limits the engine.  Actually the stock manifold is a 4-2-1 and tuned to go with the two stage intake.  which means that it's about as good as it gets optimation wise.  I think the real limit in this engine is the cams/lifters/valve springs.  If we could tune for more revs then we'd see an increase in naturally asperated power.  Bottom end wise I'd think it could routinely handle 7-7.5k rpms given a good set of baffles and an accusump.

James

[snapback]65219[/snapback]​

Thats a start. I guess you guys think that all the time we spent cracking the code on the Nissans years ago was easy....Oh and there is always the Motec option.

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Nov 11 2005, 10:19 PM
I'm saying a custom header won't give you much when that's not what limits the engine.  Actually the stock manifold is a 4-2-1 and tuned to go with the two stage intake.  which means that it's about as good as it gets optimation wise.

[snapback]65219[/snapback]​

And how many headers have been designed and dyno tested to come to this conclusion? My guess is this is "common knowledge" just like with the 944, yet there ARE headers that make more than common knowledge believes.

My point is that you're saying you're done before you've undergone any development and testing work in this area.

Your request is not well founded.