IS300 in ITS?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 20 2005, 08:46 AM
Please read post #200 of this thread (bottom of page 10). If you're going to misrepresent what I've said, at least be clever about it.

[snapback]60683[/snapback]​

Here ya'll go!

I'm not trying to compare the prep levels. You're right that the organizations are significantly different. I'm pointing out that people who eat, sleep, and dream BMW engines know that the numbers being tossed around simply aren't happening. Please note that I have not claimed that 195rwhp is the max you're going to see...only that 220 is a pipe dream...or some good marketing.

There's another reason that numbers may not be provided. Perhaps they are not as big as people think and the builders don't want to publish that their engines don't make as much power as people think the other guy's does. Publishing a number like that would be somewhat detrimental to business, don't you think? Further, what advantage is there for an owner to let his competitors know what they need to shoot for? It is racing after all.

I will say this unequivocally: Secret numbers witnessed by secret ITAC members one time on one car on one dyno on one day is not my idea of a firm basis upon which to write, or in this casse rewrite, rules.

-DD

Can you at least agree that 210whp on a dynojet is possible? No Bimmer guy on this forum has even given it an ounce of credibility - and we have seemingly proven it with a non-10/10ths motor, nevermind the numbers that have been seen and reported on other cars.

AB

 

[DoubleD]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 20 2005, 09:08 AM
Here ya'll go!
Can you at least agree that 210whp on a dynojet is possible?  No Bimmer guy on this forum has even given it an ounce of credibility - and we have seemingly proven it with a non-10/10ths motor, nevermind the numbers that have been seen and reported on other cars.

AB

[snapback]60685[/snapback]​

210whp may be possible with an all out, fresh motor without the restrictor. That's my opinion and I've stated it repeatedly here. I do not believe it's possible with the restrictor plate in a legal motor. Given the location of the plate and my limited, newbie understanding of the intake tract rules, it is not legal to, as suggested in this thread, accelerate air past it.

Something to note, however, is that the Bimmerworld's chip is as good as it's going to get in the considered opinion of people I trust to know...including people who might stand to gain financially from selling me a Motec. Motec is, in the words of a tuner-to-remain-unanmed with whom I've discussed my project, the absolute last thing I should consider doing.

Something else that is important IMO is that dyno results are not reliable with respect to absolute numbers. With the E46M3 I've seen "reliable" numbers on 100% stock baseline motors with a RWHP spread from 267 to 288...vastly more than the 1% dynojet claims. These numbers were produced on the same model dyno. They represent crank horsepower differences of 24HP or more. Frankly, the hand built S54 motors can not possibly vary that much given BMW's production controls. As such, I have a really hard time accepting arguements based in part or whole on dyno measurments.

To illustrate that, let's take Bruce's dyno and some of the more "out there" numbers thrown around here...18% difference between mustang and dynojet and 13% driveline loss at peak hp/rpm...

194.3 (bruce's measured rwhp) / .82 (mustang reads 18% lower) = 236rwhp
236rwhp / .87 (estimated driveline loss of 13%) = 271fwhp.

Now please find someone who actually believes that is possible.

For kicks and giggles, lets further hypothetically accept the notion that further tuning WITH the restrictor ADDED 7rwhp to the 210rwhp pre-restricor "best of the best" value claimed.

(217 / .82) / .87 = 305.6fwhp

These are all numbers that have been posted in this thread. With some people making claims like this can you not understand why BMW owners might fall out of their chairs? (305-189) / 189 *100 = 61% increase.

 

[JeffYoung]

Another piece of anecdotal evidence that I'm sure the BMW folks will love.

I used to have an S52 M Coupe (3.2 240 hp motor). I trolled the BMW boards when I owned it (great car by the way). It was pretty much a given that BMW underreported stock horsepower throughout the 90s by about 5-7%. People with the S52 would routinely see 220 or so rwhp on the dyno, and it was common knowledge the engine actually made in the 250-260 range stock.

The 325 forums (go to www.roadfly.org if you want to read them) reported essentially the same for that car. Realworld dyno experience on the motor was about 195-200 stock.

There are some nice gains to be had with the 325, but I agree the engine is pretty optimized from the factory. For example, a lot of people reported LOST hp with aftermarket "CAS" intakes. But also remember it was a very stout 189 out of the factory. Probably very close to the inline six in the Supra that makes 200 hp...in car classed at 3300 lbs!

Another interesting point -- that 2.5 liter makes more torque all across the rev range than my 3.5 liter (albeit low tech) V8. Potent motor.

That said, 250 hp BMWs don't bother me. It is the 250 hp, 200lb underweight ones that do (sorry Jake, I can't let it go....lol).

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 20 2005, 02:55 PM
194.3 (bruce's measured rwhp) / .82 (mustang reads 18% lower) = 236rwhp
236rwhp / .87 (estimated driveline loss of 13%) = 271fwhp.

[snapback]60689[/snapback]​

Dave,

You've taken the extremes of the numbers to make a point, but in reality the extremes of the numbers are not where the value lies. We all know that. Yes, those numbers are funny, but not realistic and nothing that anyone is claiming is occuring here.

The point is, a 195 rwhp BMW, on a Dynojet or on a Mustang Dyno, is a powerful car and is outside of the scope of ITS at the weight the BMW is classed at. There is nothing else in the class that can come near it. So, if that is what you want, then you should get one and build it.

Now, do you not want to build it if it will have an adjustment so that it is competitive, but not an overdog? I'm sure that when the ITAC makes an adjustment it'll be to make it competitive but to take away the overdog nature the car has. I wonder how many people will lose interest in the BMW without the advantages? Certainly it costs more to build than a RX7 and if both ran the same, well...

Ron

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 20 2005, 09:55 AM
210whp may be possible with an all out, fresh motor without the restrictor. That's my opinion and I've stated it repeatedly here. I do not believe it's possible with the restrictor plate in a legal motor. Given the location of the plate and my limited, newbie understanding of the intake tract rules, it is not legal to, as suggested in this thread, accelerate air past it.

Well I don't remember ANYONE saying that 210 was possible, I will take your word for it. That issue should be put to rest. Now, the million dollar question: What is a fair weight for a car (any car) that puts that much power to the ground?

Something to note, however, is that the Bimmerworld's chip is as good as it's going to get in the considered opinion of people I trust to know...including people who might stand to gain financially from selling me a Motec. Motec is, in the words of a tuner-to-remain-unanmed with whom I've discussed my project, the absolute last thing I should consider doing.

Then why doesn't Turner or Bimmerworld use a static chip for their WC cars? I submit it is 'good enough' for the average user (me included). Fully programmable units need people who know what they are doing to make them sing.

Something else that is important IMO is that dyno results are not reliable with respect to absolute numbers. With the E46M3 I've seen "reliable" numbers on 100% stock baseline motors with a RWHP spread from 267 to 288...vastly more than the 1% dynojet claims. These numbers were produced on the same model dyno. They represent crank horsepower differences of 24HP or more. Frankly, the hand built S54 motors can not possibly vary that much given BMW's production controls. As such, I have a really hard time accepting arguements based in part or whole on dyno measurments.

Pure conjecture on your part. If you told me that the SAME E46 M3 was run on different DJ's and there was that type of difference, you would have something. Otherwise, it's just simply not valid data.

To illustrate that, let's take Bruce's dyno and some of the more "out there" numbers thrown around here...18% difference between mustang and dynojet and 13% driveline loss at peak hp/rpm...

194.3 (bruce's measured rwhp) / .82 (mustang reads 18% lower) = 236rwhp
236rwhp / .87 (estimated driveline loss of 13%) = 271fwhp.

Now please find someone who actually believes that is possible.

For kicks and giggles, lets further hypothetically accept the notion that further tuning WITH the restrictor ADDED 7rwhp to the 210rwhp pre-restricor "best of the best" value claimed.

(217 / .82) / .87 = 305.6fwhp

These are all numbers that have been posted in this thread. With some people making claims like this can you not understand why BMW owners might fall out of their chairs? (305-189) / 189 *100 = 61% increase.

[snapback]60689[/snapback]​

This point has validity to me. That is why we don't use the highs, we don't use the lows. We use the figures somewhere in the middle - THAT HAVE BEEN VERIFIED OVER AND OVER. 210whp is a good number IMHO. And again...what kind of weight is needed at that power level to fit in with 175hp RX-7's and 160hp 240Z's?

AB

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 18 2005, 11:22 AM
Bill,

...only that 220 is a pipe dream...or some good marketing.

..................
I will say this unequivocally: Secret numbers witnessed by secret ITAC members one time on one car on one dyno on one day is not my idea of a firm basis upon which to write, or in this casse rewrite, rules.

-DD

[snapback]60500[/snapback]​

OK, then re read the multiple posts where any of us has stated that, even using 195, much less 210, yeilds a different weight than now exists......

If I ever claimed or infered to see 220 plus on info I have been sent, I apologise for the misunderstanding. At this point, the biggest number that I have is 217. I regard that as one data point. The extreme point. You'll notice I discuss 210 as more of the "top of the charts" in these discussions....

Again, 210 (or 205, or 195 on a Mustang) doesn't fit the physical properties of the class structure.

 

[DoubleD]

Originally posted by rlearp@Sep 20 2005, 10:18 AM
Dave,

You've taken the extremes of the numbers to make a point, but in reality the extremes of the numbers are not where the value lies. We all know that. Yes, those numbers are funny, but not realistic and nothing that anyone is claiming is occuring here.

The point is, a 195 rwhp BMW, on a Dynojet or on a Mustang Dyno, is a powerful car and is outside of the scope of ITS at the weight the BMW is classed at. There is nothing else in the class that can come near it.  So, if that is what you want, then you should get one and build it.

Now, do you not want to build it if it will have an adjustment so that it is competitive, but not an overdog? I'm sure that when the ITAC makes an adjustment it'll be to make it competitive but to take away the overdog nature the car has.  I wonder how many people will lose interest in the BMW without the advantages? Certainly it costs more to build than a RX7 and if both ran the same, well...

Ron

[snapback]60691[/snapback]​

Yes, I've taken the extremes of the numbers and I did so openly. That is perfectly in line with the stated intention to take the "best of the best" as the benchmark by which to classify and/or adjust the car.

It's a slam-dunk non competitive car at 3200lbs. Period. End of story. It's not parity, it's penalization for success. And no, I will not build an non competitive car. Period. ITAC members have admitted on this forum that they do not know the true effect of the last adjustment they made and are pushing for another much larger change. No, I will not build a car in a class with a moving target. That's why I'm not building a BMWCCA designed car. Their classes are a moving target too.

Your last sentence is exactly what I've come to believe. When you screw the BMW's you can go ahead and rename the class to IT-Mazda or SpecRX7-2.

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 20 2005, 03:37 PM
for another much larger change. No, I will not build a car in a class with a moving target. That's why I'm not building a BMWCCA designed car. Their classes are a moving target too.

[snapback]60696[/snapback]​

Sounds like you should go the SRF or SM route. The BMW caused a big stir when classed in ITS and continues to do so. It will not stop until the car quits dominating races, which of course, you personally will want to do as does everyone else. Personally, I'm sure it'll remain competitive in the class as it looks like to me the ITAC are trying to be very fair and objective.

But, discussion will abound for this car and that is not going to give you the security to build the car based on your posts and feelings, which I can understand. Build a SRF or SM and come back to it in a few years.

R

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 20 2005, 03:37 PM
It's a slam-dunk non competitive car at 3200lbs. Period. End of story. It's not parity, it's penalization for success. And no, I will not build an non competitive car. Period. ITAC members have admitted on this forum that they do not know the true effect of the last adjustment they made and are pushing for another much larger change.

[snapback]60696[/snapback]​

You simply, and admittedly, do NOT have the experience to say this with any credibility... you are simply speculating... It's your right to do, but I'll take it with a grain of salt... Have you even raced a BMW to KNOW what it is currently like to drive? Heck, the BMW 325 in SSB is 3090lbs... So apparently, they can be raced at a heavier weight without too much trouble...

The ITAC recommended the car have weight added LAST year, exactly like we believe should still happen... The CRB decided to try a restrictor instead. We've stated HERE that we were leary of doing this, but it's the CRB's call and we respect their right to make this call...

The last two years for IT have been a transistion period, and this will not always be the case... We have to finish what we've started, however, so more adjustments still need to be made...

ALL forms of racing experience evolution... Since you haven't been around long enough to apparently know, IT has been stagnent for MANY years... Some like that, but more have been frustrated by the perpetual problems that existed with seemingly no solution...

Well, we now have some solutions, and we are going to do our best to get things back in order... In several cases, that means we need to adjust some cars to get the classes back into balance...

I find it funny that you want to go race SRF because of parity, yet you aren't willing to race in IT because we are trying to achieve the same... with a VERY few realitive number of adjustments...

I'm not sure where you've been, but I'd hardly call ANY classification in IT a "moving target"... This car, in particular, is the only case where something has been recommended for an adjustment more than once...

 

[JeffYoung]

Dave, you are out of line. The 325 is competitive with the restrictor. The 325 will be competitive at most of the higher weights I've seen.

Until you get in a competing car (325 or otherwise) and watch a 325 recede from you at the end of a long straightaway, really hard to take your complaining seriously. Is the ITAC making it more difficult for the 325 to win? Yep. Is the ITAC changing things so that even moderately prepped 325s run will not routinely run near the front? Yep. Are these good things? Yep. Will BMWs still routinely win races at a higher weight? Yep, I guarantee it.

In my neck of the woods, we have a good mix of cars right now. 240z, RX7, 944s, 240sx, even an Alfa Milano that won a race a few years back. But it's pretty clear that the 325, when prepped to the max and driven by a good driver, is unbeatable. That's all the ITAC is trying to change, in my view.

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 20 2005, 03:37 PM
Your last sentence is exactly what I've come to believe. When you screw the BMW's you can go ahead and rename the class to IT-Mazda or SpecRX7-2.

[snapback]60696[/snapback]​

Well Dave, right now in the SE if you want to be a consistent winner on the hp tracks you must have a BMW. How is that any different that your statement above about Mazdas or RX7s? The ITAC is attempting to change things so that a good number of cars have a chance at the checker, including the BMW. The way it is now, only the BMW has a chance at the checker when the big ones come out to play. Basically IT-BMW.

I was thinking you were racing in IT but I see that you have been racing in BMW classes. Nothing wrong with that, but until you are racing in IT some and see what is happening in IT it is a little hard to put a lot of validity with your claims. I'm new to IT myself, only been around a little over a year, but once you get on track a few times in the S crowd a lot of things become apparent.

R

 

[DoubleD]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 20 2005, 10:23 AM
Well I don't remember ANYONE saying that 210 was possible, I will take your word for it.  That issue should be put to rest.  Now, the million dollar question:  What is a fair weight for a car (any car) that puts that much power to the ground?
Then why doesn't Turner or Bimmerworld use a static chip for their WC cars?  I submit it is 'good enough' for the average user (me included).  Fully programmable units need people who know what they are doing to make them sing.
Pure conjecture on your part.  If you told me that the SAME E46 M3 was run on different DJ's and there was that type of difference, you would have something.  Otherwise, it's just simply not valid data.
This point has validity to me.  That is why we don't use the highs, we don't use the lows.  We use the figures somewhere in the middle - THAT HAVE BEEN VERIFIED OVER AND OVER.  210whp is a good number IMHO.  And again...what kind of weight is needed at that power level to fit in with 175hp RX-7's and 160hp 240Z's?

AB

[snapback]60692[/snapback]​

210 is an old, pre-restrictor number. It shouldnt be used within the context of adjusting a car based on 2005 results.

Are we to hold the BMW crowd to a WC effort/talent/budget standard while holding the rest of the class to an "average" user standard?

Are we to compare E46 WC efforts from big budget teams with oustanding professional drivers to the E36 325 contingent in ITS? Great - we can hold the RX7 guys to the standard set by SpeedSource's RX8's or the TriPoint Mazda's then too, right? We can all drive like Pobst and Auberlin...or all have the potential to, right?

If we were drag racing and using a simple HP/weight equation to equalize, 3062lbs would be the number to match the 96-91 RX7. That is, of course, ASSuming a 10hp loss with the restrictor from a 210rwhp "accepted pre-restrictor" motor. We're not drag racing though, are we. I may have missed it, and if I did and you could point it out w/ my thanks, but I don't see anywhere here that an ITAC member has proposed a number not based strictly on HP/weight. This is, of course, despite protestations to the effect that 3200 includes acommodation for brakes, tires, etc.

I have made a sincere effort here to recognize the reality of the totallity of the situation. I have, in return, received backhanded congratulations, been directly misrepresented, and been condescended to.

Can someone help a newbie out and post the equation used to classify ITS cars? I can't seem to find it. All I can find is the statments:

"On rare occasion - and only after the carefull review of the actual racing performance of an actual make/model/year of vehicle - the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle's minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required."

and

"Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than reclassification, are not allowed."

So SCCA has already insituted the "rare", "extreme situation" fix and, less than a year later we have calls for a 350 pound increase from ITAC members.

I would dearly like to see the classification equation - I'm not being trite. I literally cant find it.

 

[DoubleD]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 20 2005, 11:49 AM
I would dearly like to see the classification equation - I'm not being trite. I literally cant find it.

[snapback]60701[/snapback]​

PS, I spent 3 minutes with excel and have an equation that attempts to balance HP, weight, and tire width...and proposes a weight for any car based on rwhp. There is, of course, no way I'd post it here.

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 20 2005, 04:53 PM
PS, I spent 3 minutes with excel and have an equation that attempts to balance HP, weight, and tire width...and proposes a weight for any car based on rwhp. There is, of course, no way I'd post it here.

[snapback]60702[/snapback]​

Well of course you wouldn't... Why should you lay yourself on the line when it's so much easier to attack us and our ideas, thoughts, opinions, and data...

In the letter with proposed changes for next season, the CRB has a very detailed and complete description and explanation of the classification process that the ITAC has used over the past two seasons... It's not official SCCA policy, but since we've been using it, they've accepted our recommendations and seemed pleased with the progess of the classes thus far...

I'm not sure if the CRB will make this the "official" process or not, and I'm even less sure if they'd ever publish it if they did make it "official"... It's not up to us, it's up to them. I, for one, see making it totally public as a double-edged sword... I'm all for being open, etc., but I can also see this very same conversation going on for every car in IT as you guys all start running your cars through based on your own idea of what is "correct", and then getting up in arms about the weight...

I've laid out the essential parts of the process several times, and I think the ITAC has provided enough weights, HP figures, etc., for someone to figure out the specific target ratios, etc... Beyond that, I just don't think the actual details of those numbers are really that important...

The ITAC has been transparent as hell in this whole discussion... We've attempted to provide reasonable arguments for this discussion to support our point of view... Any "backhanded" anything that you've perceived is simply that, your perception...

We have a process that is sound, yields consistent results, and treats all cars to a degree of fairness that is unprecedented in IT... Additionally, it's fairly objective... as objective as it can be given the data available...

I've explained several times now the reasons for the previous adjustment to the E36, as well as the ITACs position from the start...

NO car is going to receive any special treatment from us... We've examamined ALL of the IT specs and have a very good feel for what needs to be done to get this all sorted out... This is but one of the adjustments that is necessary to make the class balance...

 

[DoubleD]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 20 2005, 10:51 AM


I'm not sure where you've been, but I'd hardly call ANY classification in IT a "moving target"... This car, in particular, is the only case where something has been recommended for an adjustment more than once... 

[snapback]60698[/snapback]​

Which is precisely what I mean by moving target.

 

[DoubleD]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 20 2005, 12:13 PM
Well of course you wouldn't...  Why should you lay yourself on the line when it's so much easier to attack us and our ideas, thoughts, opinions, and data... 

The ITAC has been transparent as hell in this whole discussion...  We've attempted to provide reasonable arguments for this discussion to support our point of view...  Any "backhanded" anything that you've perceived is simply that, your perception...

We have a process that is sound, yields consistent results, and treats all cars to a degree of fairness that is unprecedented in IT...  Additionally, it's fairly objective... as objective as it can be given the data available...

I've explained several times now the reasons for the previous adjustment to the E36, as well as the ITACs position from the start...

NO car is going to receive any special treatment from us...  We've examamined ALL of the IT specs and have a very good feel for what needs to be done to get this all sorted out...  This is but one of the adjustments that is necessary to make the class balance...

[snapback]60703[/snapback]​

Show me the equation.

Attack you? I've been careful not to. It would be really easy to do, even by accident. I've believe I've been respectful and, to a degree, deferential.

 

[Ron Earp]

Dave, give up. Your are argumentative, confrontational, and clearly really don't give much thought to anyone's post but your own. IT is a great group, a very supportive community, and has outstanding drivers, mechanics, and support people. Community is the operative word and even though not everyone agrees we get along and help each other.

You aren't even racing a ITS E36 nor have turned a lap in an IT car, but you disregard the opinions of lots of folks on this forum more experienced than you or I. I think you'll find SRF more to you liking and maybe you get on better with their control board there, if you have an open mind when you approach them. If your approach there is as it is here, well, I imagine the outcome will be the same.

Good luck with whatever you choose to race, but more and more it appears an ITS BMW would be a bad move for you and you would not be happy. Reminds me of a racer I met a year or so ago who said he was considering a BMW but not if they were going to put a restrictor plate on it, make it too hard to win, he didn't want a lot of time in development because he didn't have time for that sort of thing. Winning isn't easy and the ITAC is trying to make it not easy for BMWs, not impossible, just not easy.

I'm sure if you build a BMW, pay attention to detail, and drive well, you'll be able to win some races. There are too many BMWs around for the ITAC to not acheive this outcome. But, that is your choice.

Ron

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 20 2005, 05:16 PM
Show me the equation.

[snapback]60705[/snapback]​

IT-Prepped HP * Target wt/pwr ratio + Vehicle specific Adders = spec weight

Adders determined based on brakes, tranny ratios, suspension design, drive-configuration

It's not an "equation"... there are too many subjective items for an equation to work... Especially in the estimation of IT-prepped HP and the Adders... These can only be derived from experience and any data we might have available...

Enjoy...

 

[its66]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 20 2005, 04:53 PM
PS, I spent 3 minutes with excel and have an equation that attempts to balance HP, weight, and tire width...and proposes a weight for any car based on rwhp. There is, of course, no way I'd post it here.

[snapback]60702[/snapback]​

Deja vu. from 2002. Most of us went down this road several years ago.

The last person to compile all the data on each car built a page and linked to it for all to use. Bill, wasn't that you? Or was it K?

 

[DoubleD]

Originally posted by rlearp@Sep 20 2005, 12:24 PM
Dave, give up. Your are argumentative, confrontational, and clearly really don't give much thought to anyone's post but your own.  IT is a great group, a very supportive community, and has outstanding drivers, mechanics, and support people. Community is the operative word and even though not everyone agrees we get along and help each other. 

You aren't even racing a ITS E36 nor have turned a lap in an IT car, but you disregard the opinions of lots of folks on this forum more experienced than you or I.  I think you'll find SRF more to you liking and maybe you get on better with their control board there, if you have an open mind when you approach them.  If your approach there is as it is here, well, I imagine the outcome will be the same.

Good luck with whatever you choose to race, but more and more it appears an ITS BMW would be a bad move for you and you would not be happy. Reminds me of a racer I met a year or so ago who said he was considering a BMW but not if they were going to put a restrictor plate on it, make it too hard to win, he didn't want a lot of time in development because he didn't have time for that sort of thing.  Winning isn't easy and the ITAC is trying to make it not easy for BMWs, not impossible, just not easy.

Ron

[snapback]60706[/snapback]​

Classic. I am, according to some here, the only person who has even acknowleged that the 325 is a class overdog, yet I'm unsuited for the class. And you guys wonder why you get stonewalled?