IS300 in ITS?
- Thread starter SPiFF
- Start date
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
This post exemplifies for me that we will have to just agree to disagree. Here are a few points where we are on polar opposite sides of the fence:
1. "Slam dunk non-competitive"...you have no way of knowing that, and neither do I. The process we have that is BASED in power to weight - along with other SUBJECTIVE factors show that it will fit perfectly.
2. The ITAC is not pushing for ANOTHER change. This came up in the context of another high-power I-6 someone wanted to get classed. However the subject came up, we are talking about 'correcting' a mistake many people - the majority if I may be so bold - see in ITS. 100% of the cars that have been classed over the past 2 years, as well as reclassifications, have been done using this process. IT have NEVER looked better. You have NEVER had so many choices to run up front in ANY class.
3. And here is the clincher. "When you screw the BMW's you can go ahead and rename the class to IT-Mazda or SpecRX7-2". If you see this as a 'screwing' then we have failed you. I haven't talked with any non-Bimmer owners who think this is a screwing or a witch-hunt, etc. It's an idea that has been floated by many to fix a problem. A problem that STILL exists, even with a RP in place.
I see no reason that the E36 be excluded from this process, especially seeing as how it is dominant in Apples to Apples comparisons.
Thanks for being open and honest about your position. Just because we differ means nothing. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last.
AB
Banzai240
New member
If you've acknowleged that the 325 is an overdog... why are you so against the ITAC suggesting that something be done about it??? If it's simply the way it's being done, then you will be perpetually frustrated, because there are always multiple ways to do things "right", but you have to pick the one that is the most balanced... That's what we have been doing...
No one said that YOU were "unsuited" for the class... What was said is that perhaps the class is not suitable for you... I'd take that to mean, if you don't like the way the class is run, then perhaps this isn't the class for you... Sounds like a reasonable bit of advice to me...
I had the same frustrations with Production a few years ago, and went through the same conflicts myself... I came to the position that Production was not for me, so I focused my attention in IT instead...
In your case, if our recommendations get accepted and implemented, I'd suggest that if you first learned of the class NEXT year, you'd find it an excellent option, with numerous cars to choose from with a legit shot at being a front-runner...
I have not stonewalled changes. I have responded to what amount to inflated horsepower claims (220, do I hear 225? 225! do I hear 230?) and contended that the subjectives end of the class calculation would be unfairly affected by increasing the weight to 3200lbs.
We seem to be at a place where the next step is to argue the meaning of the word "is". I'm going to quit this discussion now while I still have hair on my head.
Before I go, could someone please inform me of the date certain by which any and all changes must be published for the 2006 racing year? I realize that the current year's GCR becomes effective 1/1, but is there a publish-by date?
Bildon
New member
I really have no position in these arguments but Dan Jones' BMW that was as fast as the Turner car this weekend at WGI has none of the bells and whistles being discussed here.
I race against the C&G cars at nearly every event and I'm pretty sure they do not have the Motec or other magic components being discussed here. They are just well driven.
Perhaps this is more indicative of the weight issue rather than the hi-tech complaints?
I race against the C&G cars at nearly every event and I'm pretty sure they do not have the Motec or other magic components being discussed here. They are just well driven.
Perhaps this is more indicative of the weight issue rather than the hi-tech complaints?
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Originally posted by Bildon@Sep 20 2005, 01:31 PM
I really have no position in these arguments but Dan Jones' BMW that was as fast as the Turner car this weekend at WGI has none of the bells and whistles being discussed here.
I race against the C&G cars at nearly every event and I'm pretty sure they do not have the Motec or other magic components being discussed here. They are just well driven.
Perhaps this is more indicative of the weight issue rather than the hi-tech complaints?
[snapback]60718[/snapback]
Bill,
I respect your opinion, but I don't quite understand what you are saying. Dumb it down for me...
AB
Banzai240
New member
Inflated based on what data???
I don't recall saying anything about you "stonewalling" changes... I just said you are arguing against those being proposed, with little basis of fact or data to back your position... Even your comment quoted here is without basis in any supporting data... It's only one opinion...
Recommendations are presented to the BoD in December, and the results should be published early in 2006... They should be available on the web sooner...
If we hear anything sooner, and are authorized to do so, we will inform the community...
Dang, Dave - I SO wish that you could have been involved in conversations similar to this, as recently as 18 months ago. It is SO much better now than it was. Problem is, while the system was a huge suck-o-rama, it worked to TRULY screw a few models of car (how about a '95 Honda Civic EX in ITS??) and to benefit some others.
The e36 325 got very lucky under that system and came out smelling like a rose. It was competitive, and therefore popular. That Honda was NEVER built because it really WAS a 'slam-dunk' that it was a non-starter and, just like the ITAC helped fix that inequity, it is obligated to try to fix the one created by the favorable Bimmer classing as well.
If you still think everyone has it out for that car, don't built one. Seriously. You will constant be distracted by thoughts that you're getting beat by the rules rather than by superior preparation, engineering, or driving - and you won't have fun.
K
Bill Miller
New member
Jim,
I'm pretty sure that was Kirk
Dave, that statement alone shows just how little grasp you have on the situation at hand.
And by all means, go race SRF. At least your finishing position will be a better reflection of your driving ability I think a lot of these folks are right when they say you won't be happy racing in ITS.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Dave, there have been a ton of good points raised here in the 330 plus posts...
We've covered:
-differences in dynos, both manufacturer and location.
-differences in cars...some ARE weaker right out of the box
-differences in prep levels
-differences in the same car at different tracks, vis a vis the other cars
-a variety of data, some conflicting, some rather consistant.
We should be able to draw some conclusions-
1- the class "target" is the RX-7/Zcar. That is to say, (and lets not get hung up in definitions TOO much here) on an average track, the physical properties of the 7 and the Z, will yeild, when well prepped and well driven, the benchmark in terms of performance. On some tracks certain cars with different characteristics will be stronger, and so on. That is the nature of racing cars with varying configurations. Ideally, it all averages out.
2- there is a process that is in use to equate the physical characteristics of varying models and align them with the class targets. This is true for all 4 classes. It takes into account a variety of chacteristics, not limited to the type, and spec of engine, suspension, brakes, weight and balance, and so on. The numbers that the process yields along the way are constantly "reality checked" by a panel of 9 guys, who draw upon experts in the various marque areas as further reality checks.
3- if you read between the lines you can see that the ITAC is doing work on many cars in all the classes, and this may come to light in the future, if the boards decree it. We make recommendations, they enact. Any car that is seen as not fitting the model has gotten a double take. We use the car names to ID them, but thats it, we don't care if it's a BMW or a Borgward.
4-Finally, it is very evident that the BMW needs a double take...it doesn't fit the target as it is.
Some pertinant BMW points-
1- the car is widley known to be conservatively rated hp-wise.
2- it has many desirable traits as a race car.
-great suspension
-great brakes
-great engine, both in front of the pack torque and power
-great balance
Plus, a wealth of support from a variety of sources, and the lack of an Achilles heel.
3- we've heard many hp claims, but throwing out the highs, and the lows, and concentrating on repeated submissions by a variety of sources, it is safe to say that 210 at the wheels is very viable. (Dynojet) With tq in the 200 range.
If you take this as acceptable.....( and really, we can debate that these are "fabricated" numbers all day long, but as we have been requested to keep the sources to ourselves, that's pointless), you see the dilema we are in. (Interestingly, some of the numbers have come from unbiased third parties not in the class)
Leaving a car with a physical superiority alone is not in the best interests of the class at large, nor the people who have been marginalized by the cars inclusion.
Now, you have been better in some respects than some of your fellow BMW champions in looking at the big picture, but on the other hand, you do, as you point out, come across rather acidly in text. To the former, I direct this:
As you pointed out, you can NOT deny it is an overdog.
So, what do you suggest?
To the larger reading body, I am amazed that nobody has mounted either: a serious rebuttal, with expert testimony, etc., or has decided to work with the system to minimize the "damage" and resolve the issue in a way to serve their interests.
Largely, but not entirely, the feeling I get from this, and from previous threads is that the BMWs are entitled to their overdog position, and that the club shouldn't be raining on the parade.....and doing so in any way constitutes a "witch hunt"..
If it were me, I'd be thankingmy lucky stars for my fun few years in the sun, and I'd be trying to minimize the damage by working to an equitable solution. But then, I've never liked denying the obvious either....
We've covered:
-differences in dynos, both manufacturer and location.
-differences in cars...some ARE weaker right out of the box
-differences in prep levels
-differences in the same car at different tracks, vis a vis the other cars
-a variety of data, some conflicting, some rather consistant.
We should be able to draw some conclusions-
1- the class "target" is the RX-7/Zcar. That is to say, (and lets not get hung up in definitions TOO much here) on an average track, the physical properties of the 7 and the Z, will yeild, when well prepped and well driven, the benchmark in terms of performance. On some tracks certain cars with different characteristics will be stronger, and so on. That is the nature of racing cars with varying configurations. Ideally, it all averages out.
2- there is a process that is in use to equate the physical characteristics of varying models and align them with the class targets. This is true for all 4 classes. It takes into account a variety of chacteristics, not limited to the type, and spec of engine, suspension, brakes, weight and balance, and so on. The numbers that the process yields along the way are constantly "reality checked" by a panel of 9 guys, who draw upon experts in the various marque areas as further reality checks.
3- if you read between the lines you can see that the ITAC is doing work on many cars in all the classes, and this may come to light in the future, if the boards decree it. We make recommendations, they enact. Any car that is seen as not fitting the model has gotten a double take. We use the car names to ID them, but thats it, we don't care if it's a BMW or a Borgward.
4-Finally, it is very evident that the BMW needs a double take...it doesn't fit the target as it is.
Some pertinant BMW points-
1- the car is widley known to be conservatively rated hp-wise.
2- it has many desirable traits as a race car.
-great suspension
-great brakes
-great engine, both in front of the pack torque and power
-great balance
Plus, a wealth of support from a variety of sources, and the lack of an Achilles heel.
3- we've heard many hp claims, but throwing out the highs, and the lows, and concentrating on repeated submissions by a variety of sources, it is safe to say that 210 at the wheels is very viable. (Dynojet) With tq in the 200 range.
If you take this as acceptable.....( and really, we can debate that these are "fabricated" numbers all day long, but as we have been requested to keep the sources to ourselves, that's pointless), you see the dilema we are in. (Interestingly, some of the numbers have come from unbiased third parties not in the class)
Leaving a car with a physical superiority alone is not in the best interests of the class at large, nor the people who have been marginalized by the cars inclusion.
Now, you have been better in some respects than some of your fellow BMW champions in looking at the big picture, but on the other hand, you do, as you point out, come across rather acidly in text. To the former, I direct this:
As you pointed out, you can NOT deny it is an overdog.
So, what do you suggest?
To the larger reading body, I am amazed that nobody has mounted either: a serious rebuttal, with expert testimony, etc., or has decided to work with the system to minimize the "damage" and resolve the issue in a way to serve their interests.
Largely, but not entirely, the feeling I get from this, and from previous threads is that the BMWs are entitled to their overdog position, and that the club shouldn't be raining on the parade.....and doing so in any way constitutes a "witch hunt"..
If it were me, I'd be thankingmy lucky stars for my fun few years in the sun, and I'd be trying to minimize the damage by working to an equitable solution. But then, I've never liked denying the obvious either....
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Bildon
New member
Andy, I was just trying to say that some here are focusing on MoTeCs, Stacks, BW, Turner tweaks, etc. and from what I've seen the cars that don't have these parts are still running up front. I think this is more indicative of an excellent car. The BMW 325is is a great car ... Period! Should it not be the new 'benchmark' of ITS ? Now if there are legitimate weight discrepancies in the ITCS, fix them, but the car is a bettter car out of the box than the current benchmarks listed here as the RX7 and 240z. Then again, what do I know? I"m just a VW guy with a Corrado that can't catch them.Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 20 2005, 02:47 PM
I respect your opinion, but I don't quite understand what you are saying. Dumb it down for me...
[snapback]60719[/snapback]
BeaveRun:
BMW 1:07
Corrado 1:10 :angry:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Originally posted by Bildon@Sep 20 2005, 09:21 PM
Andy, I was just trying to say that some here are focusing on MoTeCs, Stacks, BW, Turner tweaks, etc. and from what I've seen the cars that don't have these parts are still running up front. I think this is more indicative of an excellent car. The BMW 325is is a great car ... Period! Should it not be the new 'benchmark' of ITS ? Now if there are legitimate weight discrepancies in the ITCS, fix them, but the car is a bettter car out of the box than the current benchmarks listed here as the RX7 and 240z. Then again, what do I know? I"m just a VW guy with a Corrado that can't catch them.
BeaveRun:
BMW 1:07
Corrado 1:10 :angry:
[snapback]60766[/snapback]
That is what I thought you meant...but ya know...
I think you are on the money with your assessment. The question is what to do. When one car has the ability to do what this car has done (run at the front without 10/10ths development), do you reset the rest of the class or reset one car?
The answer is obvious to me. We are in the process of correcting a ton of problems in IT, this is just one that we are continuing to look at. I don't want any overdogs and I don't want any underdogs...2006 will be a real interesting year if we have our way...
AB
Marcus Miller
New member
A thought on SIR's, from the GT world.
http://www.gt-racecar.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=986
If they were that great for the GT's why are they thinking of going away from them?
No dog in the fight, though I can't believe we were trying to compare Dyno numbers on a Mustang versus Dynojet. That's asinine.
(oh... and I love John Norris' E36....)
Marcus
http://www.gt-racecar.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=986
If they were that great for the GT's why are they thinking of going away from them?
No dog in the fight, though I can't believe we were trying to compare Dyno numbers on a Mustang versus Dynojet. That's asinine.
(oh... and I love John Norris' E36....)
Marcus
Banzai240
New member
I have to say not only no, but HELL NO!
The reason is that we have designed a plan that has what should be considered a minimal impact on the majority of the cars... In other words, we want to make the fewest number of adjustments and have the greatest benefit... That is why we are recommending that we move things toward a "middle"...
If the BMW were the new benchmark, what we'd be forced to do is something similiar to what we have already done with some "hopeless" ITS cars... Neon, Sentra, etc... and that's move them to ITA with weight... Additionally, cars like the 944, 240SX, heck... even the 240Z, would also need to be moved down, because you would NOT have the ability to speed them up to E36 levels under current IT rules... Just wouldn't be possible...
What the final outcome of that would be would that ITA would look like ITS of old, ITB like ITA of old, etc... We'd shift everyone down and those existing cars in the lower classes would be highly disrupted...
By adjusting the top and bottom around some key cars, the performance envolope of the class becomes a narrower range, and the "average" car in the class doesn't need to change... Only those whose performance potential was severely over or under estimated...
We believe this plan is in the best interests of IT, has the least negative impact with the greatest potential for satisfaction, and, although it does have some risk, is a sound way to do business...
We'll have to see where it goes from here. Hopefully, it will be more than just a plan on paper for 2006...
Catch22
New member
I'll say it again...
The response from BMW drivers should not surprise anyone. Its human nature, especially competitive humans (which I assume racers are) to try to gain an advantage and keep it.
The E36 has an advantage. The owners want to keep it.
The ITAC has recognized that advantage and is saying "Sorry guys, but you can't keep it."
The E36 owners are not happy.
Thats not exactly rocket science. If I had spent a few years building and developing an E36 I'd likely feel the same way.
But... It has to be done. Apples to apples, nobody can touch this car. Thats bad M'kay.
The response from BMW drivers should not surprise anyone. Its human nature, especially competitive humans (which I assume racers are) to try to gain an advantage and keep it.
The E36 has an advantage. The owners want to keep it.
The ITAC has recognized that advantage and is saying "Sorry guys, but you can't keep it."
The E36 owners are not happy.
Thats not exactly rocket science. If I had spent a few years building and developing an E36 I'd likely feel the same way.
But... It has to be done. Apples to apples, nobody can touch this car. Thats bad M'kay.