IS300 in ITS?

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 15 2005, 12:30 PM

You ask me "why is this car classified at this weight"...  If it's one we have worked with, I can tell you pretty much exactly how it came to be classified there...
Click to expand...

Thank you Darin, you're posts have been mosts illuminating. If you would please then, have you looked at the 91-94 e-36 318 speced at 3840lbs? I also suspect that the other 318's are a little on the chubb side. Two preludes five hp difference with the same weight, vs. two BMW's two hp difference with 75 lbs weight difference? I'm refering to the 96-99 318ti and the Z3 with the same motor and different exhaust's. I look forward to you sheading light on this, thanks.

James
 
Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 15 2005, 08:36 PM
Scott makes a good point. I think we still haven't seen anywhere near what the E36 can do.

I watched (after I broke my motor during qual) Chet run away from very good RX7s and BMWs at SARRC MARRS at VIR in May. I also know that he strecthed out a 20 second (!) lead on one of the best prepped and driven RX7s in the SEDiv (one that ran neck and neck with Nick Leverone in March at VIR) and then throttled back, took it easy and I watched his lap times go up 3-4 seconds on the clock.

[snapback]60310[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

i was one of those other bmw's at vir for the sarrc/marrs. besides chet, none of the rest of us bmw's that finished were even close to keeping up with that rx7...

one of the bmw's that broke qualified a tick faster than chet, and i know the hp output of that car is nowhere near the inflated crap numbers being thrown around in this forum.

ra and vir keep gettting brought up as example of how dominant the bmw is. lets hear more about the tracks in the northeast that are dominated by rx7's.
 
Marshall, I know your car. Ed York was close to Chet.

Steve Echerich's car is fast and legal and he's a nice guy. But Chet had him hands down.

Bottom line though is I don't really care about results, or about the hp numbers (although I think you guys are fooling yourselves if you don't believe that there are BMWs out there with 240 or so at the crank).

Bottom line is I would like an E36 driver to PLEASE JUSTIFY THE 2850 WEIGHT. I've asked, Ron's asked and Darrin has talked about it 5-6 times in this thread and all we get back is grousing about E36s being picked on and how hp numbers are wrong and how RX7s still dominate here and there.

So, and not trying to be rude, will an E36 driver please tell me why their car is classed at 2850 when the curb weight was over (and probably well over) 3000 lbs?
 
Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 15 2005, 08:00 PM
So if I am reading this right, a BMW driver on the CRB essentially was responsible for rejecting the ITAC recommendation that the BMW weight be corrected, and instead got the CRB to use the restrictor (which is as antithetical to IT philosophy)?
[snapback]60302[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


That's really not what I said...

I said it was on his recommendation that the restrictor got implemented. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that he was consulted about the implentation...

The CRB was not comfortable adding that much weight to this car, and wanted to go with a restrictor instead. The ITAC recommendation was to go with weight. We agreed to entertain the restrictor idea, however, our official position remained to increase the weight, because we were ALL skeptical as to the effectiveness of these restrictors. Since other similiar BMWs were required to run restrictors, the expertise of this individual was used to determine the size and there you go...

I'm not sure I'd characterize this as the CRB "rejecting" a recomendation... They just had a different idea of how to accomplish the same desired outcome... and hopefully without the repercussions that adding 250+ lbs to the car would certainly create...

It just happens that this time, it didn't work... That doesn't make their work "wrong"... In fact, I think they should be commended for attempting to do something to help correct the classification...

My point was that JUST because a make is represented, that doesn't guarantee a perfect outcome... Using a restrictor like this (flat plate) is a real guessing game (which is why the ITAC didn't like the idea in general), and this time the information about it's effectiveness, well, it's not very effective...

NOW, when the CRB starts talking about using SIRs (Single Inlet Retrictors) instead... I'm all ears, because these appear to do exactly what you want them too... namely, they remain basically unseen by the motor until it reaches the point where you want it to stop making power... Check out what they are doing in GT with these...
 
Originally posted by Jeff Young@Sep 15 2005, 05:30 PM
So, and not trying to be rude, will an E36 driver please tell me why their car is classed at 2850 when the curb weight was over (and probably well over) 3000 lbs?
Click to expand...

Jeff, the reason nobody will post anything about the weight of the E36 is because no matter what is posted, it will be shrugged off as just plain wrong, incorrect source, or approached with complete denial since it doesn’t jive with the conventional wisdom of this forum. There is not much on the web these days since these cars are getting older, but here goes anyway…

92-96 E36 – 2866 lbs

[http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2117/act/usedcarreviewspecs/]

Edit to insert the correct quote from Jeff Young...
 
Originally posted by cbuzzetti@Sep 14 2005, 05:08 PM
In the San Fran Region the ITA class is owned by (of all things) a 1st gen RX7.
The driver is capable and has raced these cars for many years.
Pevious to that the RX3 dominated for many years.
The current ITA class at SFR is huge (25+ cars) with many SM and purpose built ITA Miata's. Some are as fast as the 1st gen 7. Yes there are a few Honda's and Acura's also.
Is the 1st gen a tweener? Doesn't appear so. This group has many good drivers.
But the 1st gen still wins. And has multiple championships.
Maybe alot of the 1st gens running ITA are not prepped to the maximum level.
Keep in mind this is the largest region in the nation. Typical double regional weekends have 350-500 entries. 50-60 SM and 25+ ITA. Alot of the drivers run multiple classes.
Check out race results here.
http://www.sfrscca.org/Results/index.html

See ya at turn one!!

Charles Buzzetti
ITS RX7 #78
[snapback]60204[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Maybe at the house that Mazda built :)

James
 
Darin, thanks for the clarification. That makes sense.

Dan, the number from BMWCCA club racing's site (I can't post the link right now, will do so later) lists the factory weight for the E36 325 to be 3087. I think your link is to a consumer page and, while I know what your response will be, it is wrong.

3087 is what BMWCCA says it came from teh factory at; hard to argue with that source and that is the number I've heard for a long time. I've seen higher numbers, but agree they are wrong.
 
Bruce,

Yes, Chris Albin has posted here (so has Lee Grasser), but IIRC, Chris has posted using his wife's account. So have the 'majority' of the ITAC posted here, at one time or another? Yes. Does the 'majority' post here on a regular basis? Don't think so.

And, is it possible that that 2866# weight is for the E36 318?

As far as 'outrageous' hp figures, your 195 WHP translates to 240+ FHP, assuming a 20% driveline loss. And you've admited that you've left some ponies on the table. So I don't see how anyone can say they're surprised by an E36 325 making on the North side of 240hp at the flywheel.
 
I would LOVE to tell you about the Northeastern tracks "Dominated" by RX-7's.

It's a team car that is 10/10th's and driven to the extreme. It has 1 BMW that it races against - a 2nd year driver with a stock motor and 100+ lbs overweight. The rest of the cars now are RX-7's with a smatering of other stuff thrown in. 90% Mazda's for sure.

In 2004, this same car LOST the NARRC championship to a BMW and should have come in 3rd only due to a crash at the Runoofs (Jeff). A BMW (Rob) that was driven to the extreme but NOT developed 100% took the money. No MOTEC-type system. Those guys sold the cars and tried to get 2 E46 323's done for this year and HAVE YET to hit the track...so of the 3 cars that were the top dogs last year...only one is on track this year and it's an RX-7. Simple math really.

Our team car that holds 5 track records hasn't seen a top BMW. York's enduro car doesn't have the power, Kip's car is gone and Ron and Jeff havent run all year. Hello? The new TR we set at Pocono was only 4/10th's better than Kip in his new 944's in it's SECOND RACE with clutch issues.

There is no prejudice here. Cripes, I am on the Spec Miata committee as well and voted to OUTLAW a lightweight clutch set-up people were developing...and I HAVE ONE IN MY CAR!!! It's about what is better for the greater good.

Other classes are being looked at. The BMW just happens to need some 'help' so it doesn't ruin ITS. WIthout the RP, you would need to have a BMW to win if you had even a reasonable example that was well driven in your area. Sorry, but those are the facts as I see them.

I can be contacted anytime to discuss my personal position on any issue.

508-878-2228. I'll tell you like I see it.

AB
 
Good points Andy. <hijack on>As an aside note, I wish you and others could have knocked that light clutch out. As it stands, you've got to have one to be in the running and that lightened my wallet by $550 plus another $300 or so if I don't install it myself. All so that everyone can enjoy the couple of 1/10ths it adds to laptimes that wouldn't matter one iota if everyone didn't have it. <hijack off>
 
Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 15 2005, 09:40 PM
Marshall, I know your car.  Ed York was close to Chet. 

Steve Echerich's car is fast and legal and he's a nice guy.  But Chet had him hands down.

Bottom line though is I don't really care about results, or about the hp numbers (although I think you guys are fooling yourselves if you don't believe that there are BMWs out there with 240 or so at the crank).

Bottom line is I would like an E36 driver to PLEASE JUSTIFY THE 2850 WEIGHT. I've asked, Ron's asked and Darrin has talked about it 5-6 times in this thread and all we get back is grousing about E36s being picked on and how hp numbers are wrong and how RX7s still dominate here and there.

So, and not trying to be rude, will an E36 driver please tell me why their car is classed at 2850 when the curb weight was over (and probably well over) 3000 lbs?
[snapback]60317[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

yup, ed was close to chet...faster even...except he didn't finish either race. and i will say again...his engine isn't putting out anywhere near the inflated numbers flying around here. now even the crank numbers are getting bid up. who came up with a 20% driveline loss? is there any shred of evidence to back that up? i doubt it. sure would be cool if my 2.5l it trim engine put out as much hp as my 3.2l m3 engine!

steve did seem like a nice guy! and i really like his choice in car colors! :023:

you don't care about results jeff? in the end, isn't that what this is all about?

why keep asking the e36 drivers why it was classed where it is? we didn't classify it or set the weight. i have no idea how any its car is classified...some mythical formula known only to an inner circle? evidently there appears to be some performance envelope now that a bunch of cars are under or over..not just the bmw. the bmw has been "adjusted" once already. until those other cars get "adjusted", this just continues to sound like a bmw witch hunt. i am not going to believe otherwise until some effort is expended elsewhere.

nick's rx7 in the ne is max'd out according to andy. good! it holds a bunch of track records....set this year. nice job to that team. that is an awesome effort! what cars held the previous records? at least one of them was a pre-restrictor plate bmw. so here we have an rx7 that is turning faster laps than some top bmw's *before* they were notched down a little. hmmm.

there are lots of bmw's out there racing. we share setup info. most of the cars are very well set up. our driving is getting better (at least mine is...slowly :smilie_pokal: ). as a group, bmw's will do better as a result of this. build an rx7 like nick's or one of those "underweight" 944s and kick our butts! well, you don't have to go to that extreme to beat me...i am still learning... B)
 
Marshall, nice post. Look, I understand the E36 guys feel targeted, but I think there is a reason for it. More on that in minute.

I of course care about results -- I want to win (despite what my car choice suggests!). All I am saying is that trying to class cars and come up with comp adjustments via broad 'results' analysis is tough -- see Darin's post on that. Temp. drivers, competition, track friendliness to makes, just too many variables.

All I am saying is that by one objective criteria, the 325 is out of whack, and that is weight. All other major IT contenders are a few percent off of their curb weight. The 325 is not. It's at least two hundred pounds less.

Also, I am AGAINST the restrictor. I think it is a bad idea in iT, and against class philosophy. Go make as much horsepower as the IT rules allow -- that to me is fair and I will have to deal with it as a competitor (I'm probably the only car in ITS that has more torque than an E36).

But the weight break given the 325 -- and that is what it is -- is wrong. It needs to be fixed.

That's all I'm saying.

I want E36s in the class, and I like it that you guys work together on setup and stuff. It's cool, it's very IT to me. Just fix the weight and I shut up.
 
Marshall, wanted a separate post on this.

I really, really don't think there is a "get the BMW" mentality. I mean, yes, I root against the cars and for RX7s and 240zs and 240sxs because I think those cars are fighting an uphill battle against a car that is super competent and too light.

I think that is what has provoked the reaction to the 325 -- not only is it good, but it got a weight break right out of the box. Fix that and I promise you, 90% of the BMW bashing goes away. If the 325 can beat teh Zs and the RXs at 3000 lbs, then those cars have NOTHING to complain about.

You agree?
 
Slowing down the top ITS cars is leadership from the rear.

ITA cars are being developed to the point where they are right on the heels of the lead ITS cars. Is there a limit on the obtainable performance of any particular car? A well invested and well developed car should win wether it has a propeller on the hood or not. The E-36 isn't an overdog, everyone else has become content with the development of there particular cars (less a few fast and well developed cars i.e. Nick's Screaming Blue Mazda)

The guys with the fast and well developed cars will keep getting faster and everyone else will keep complaining.

Rob
 
Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 15 2005, 06:40 PM
who came up with a 20% driveline loss?  is there any shred of evidence to back that up?  i doubt it. 

Click to expand...

I said it and I was wrong. It's 18% loss from the crankshaft translates to roughly a 21% gain from the drive wheels. However, not to account for driveline losses would be a serious mistake. It's only the drive wheel hp/torque that matters, so I say who cares about the crank numbers it's the wheel numbers that should be used to keep things even.

James
 
Originally posted by robits325is@Sep 15 2005, 07:18 PM

ITA cars are being developed to the point where they are right on the heels of the lead ITS cars. 

Rob
[snapback]60344[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

So true, last double regional at Infineon, an ITA Mazda and Acura finished ahead of the 2nd place ITS Mazda, then 3 ITA spec Miata's finished ahead of the 3rd place ITS Acura. All within two minutes of each other. If the ITS guys truly have a hp/weight advantage over ITA, they're not using it.

James
 
Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Sep 16 2005, 02:36 AM
I said it and I was wrong.  It's 18% loss from the crankshaft translates to roughly a 21%
[snapback]60345[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I don't think it is nearly that high on cars, and I know I am in the minority. I have been dynoing cars for years and have found that when dynoing bone stock the 18-25% rule never fits, and, a more telling piece of data - Ford engineers published a paper on the high efficiency of the drivetrain in my truck and found it only ate up around 11% of power with a 4spd OD trans with a 9.5" rear end that is extremely heavy.

Don't worry about the power, worry about the weight, that is what is wrong.

Ron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top