ITS e36 BMW

what's this talk of dropping the Power/weight in ITS? if we did that, we should run the whole category down and drop the slow cars down a class. that means wheel issues for the A-B cusp, changed weights for everyone, new decals for some, loss or gaining of competitiveness, and a lot of other things that tickle the grumpy zones in people.

ITR in general is not enough faster than ITS. I'd rather fix R as a whole (at minimum do as we have discussed in the past and rerun everything to a single process, picking the least change inducing while most equitable compromise). ITR is small, newer, known to be a bit "off" and has low enough subscription right now that we could move it up a tick to make it work without rocking the boat for everyone in IT. it would force the little cars out to S, and I'm FINE with that, as I'm sure most (the?) Celica driver(s) would be. if the E36 Bimmer is classed light, we should look at that, too. Maybe even reindex it as the benchmark based on known power to weight and bring the rest of the class in line. the only car I worry about if ITR were reweighted lighter is the S2000. How much ballast does the Flatout car run, AB?
 
JeffYoung said:
I don't buy the "won't race" at those weights. The Z32 got stuck with a big weigt and a few folks are racing them, at essentialy the same wheel hp as the 2750 E36.
Click to expand...

It's a wheel issue and a lead issue. Remember, 7" wheels in ITS. Then add in 400lbs of lead.

And why would you if you had ITR?
 
Chip42 said:
ITR in general is not enough faster than ITS.
Click to expand...

Maybe in your area it's not but as the 325's get built again like they are here, and cool stuff like RX-8's, S2000's and 968's...it's a much faster class.


the only car I worry about if ITR were reweighted lighter is the S2000. How much ballast does the Flatout car run, AB?
Click to expand...
150lbs with video set-up and full cool suit...and an OEM hardtop.

300lbs.jpg
 
Last edited:
are you saying my rx8 would lose more weight or get dropped to ITS? I spent 2 years worth of extra income to build that car specifically for ITR. the car legally will be hard to lose more weight. I am about 80 pounds over now but will be taking out the heater and some other stuff this summer. legally I don't think it can get much later than the process weight. I will be really pissed if I drop to ITS. ITR is 1 of the higher subscribed classes in the northeast when talking about purpose built cars not crossovers.

Stephen
 
Chip42 said:
what's this talk of dropping the Power/weight in ITS? if we did that, we should run the whole category down and drop the slow cars down a class. that means wheel issues for the A-B cusp, changed weights for everyone, new decals for some, loss or gaining of competitiveness, and a lot of other things that tickle the grumpy zones in people.

ITR in general is not enough faster than ITS. I'd rather fix R as a whole (at minimum do as we have discussed in the past and rerun everything to a single process, picking the least change inducing while most equitable compromise). ITR is small, newer, known to be a bit "off" and has low enough subscription right now that we could move it up a tick to make it work without rocking the boat for everyone in IT. it would force the little cars out to S, and I'm FINE with that, as I'm sure most (the?) Celica driver(s) would be. if the E36 Bimmer is classed light, we should look at that, too. Maybe even reindex it as the benchmark based on known power to weight and bring the rest of the class in line. the only car I worry about if ITR were reweighted lighter is the S2000. How much ballast does the Flatout car run, AB?
Click to expand...

See above. I need to do a write up for the ITAC. We've been VERY lucky in ITS, but have a problem brewing.

Basically, all of the "contenduhs" make significantly more than Process power. 240/260/280z, Miata, RX7, TR8, Integra, Mustang, 944s, 323. ALL of these cars are probably at least two hundred lbs light on their spec weights as a result. We've got parity because we are fortunate that all of these cars exceed process power by ROUGHLY the same amount.

But if we ran them through using a what we know number, they'd all gain a few hundred (if not more) pounds.

So do we adjust their weights up, or do we adjust the multiplier down so as not to disrupt the class?

The "unfairness" is going to become a reality as newer cars like the Sube or the Solstice come into ITS and can't make anywhere near the gains as the cars listed above.

It needs to be discussed.
 
StephenB said:
are you saying my rx8 would lose more weight or get dropped to ITS? I spent 2 years worth of extra income to build that car specifically for ITR. the car legally will be hard to lose more weight. I am about 80 pounds over now but will be taking out the heater and some other stuff this summer. legally I don't think it can get much later than the process weight. I will be really pissed if I drop to ITS. ITR is 1 of the higher subscribed classes in the northeast when talking about purpose built cars not crossovers.

Stephen
Click to expand...

unless it is beating process power now then yeah, that's what's being discussed here. I don't see much of anything changing in the very near future and you would be on my go-to list for info on the RX8 in R when I started to collect data, so you'll know if and when I do that something is being reviewed.

everyone take a deep breath - there is NO current action though I do see Jeff's points and agree in principle if not on the specific numbers.
 
StephenB said:
are you saying my rx8 would lose more weight or get dropped to ITS? I spent 2 years worth of extra income to build that car specifically for ITR. the car legally will be hard to lose more weight. I am about 80 pounds over now but will be taking out the heater and some other stuff this summer. legally I don't think it can get much later than the process weight. I will be really pissed if I drop to ITS. ITR is 1 of the higher subscribed classes in the northeast when talking about purpose built cars not crossovers.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Not at all. No specific action is being discussed, and I've just identified what is a problem with S and a less serious one with R.

At the power output of the RX8, I don't see anyway it would end up in S so I don't think you have anything to worry about, even if we had agreed to make a recommendation to the CRB.

Sorry to cause any concern, not my intent. But there IS a problem brewing in S that will need to be addressed at some point. My preference would be to do it with as little disruption to the class as possible, and that probably involves a change in the power multiplier.
 
And to be clear, that -- what the guys actually driving the car want -- is outcome determinative to me on deciding which class a "tweener" goes into.
 
StephenB said:
are you saying my rx8 would lose more weight or get dropped to ITS? I spent 2 years worth of extra income to build that car specifically for ITR. the car legally will be hard to lose more weight. I am about 80 pounds over now but will be taking out the heater and some other stuff this summer. legally I don't think it can get much later than the process weight. I will be really pissed if I drop to ITS. ITR is 1 of the higher subscribed classes in the northeast when talking about purpose built cars not crossovers.

Stephen
Click to expand...

No can do on the heater my friend, unless I've missed a new allowance.
I'm sure you can find the weight.
And no way will they send you to ITS. That car is VERY solidly documented with respect to actual "what we know" power. 213 IIRC.
 
I am not sure why guys are freaking out. Read the posts a little more carefully. The point that Jeff is making is that the top cars are out of whack with anything that would be a new classification OR anything that was on the number.

By adjusting the number down, all the cars he listed would then hit the target 'better', the cars that were 'on target' and anything newly classified would get a weight break.

Just a concept.
 
CRallo said:
But that wouldn't fix the "ITS is too fast" problem... Or has that ship sailed?
Click to expand...

ITS isn't 'too fast', its just a simple inequity concept within the multiplier right now.

Even if you 'corrected' the multiplier, ITR would still be a full lb/hp better in power to weight, often with better suspension and bigger wheels/tires. ITR just needs time to develop.

If I get out on LRP with Steve's S2000 this year, I fully expect to be under a minute after a test day and a race weekend. This is all on V.1 EVERYTHING. Shocks, springs, bars, exhaust etc. Real speed takes YEARS of development in both chassis, driver and engine. And it NEVER stops. I think with a better driver, another season of development that car could go low-mid 59's.
 
Last edited:
Once again, I want to chime in about the Porsche 911 in IT- S. It cannot make near the process horsepower and carries 200 pounds of ballast. I'm in favor of changing the weight calculation.
 
callard said:
Once again, I want to chime in about the Porsche 911 in IT- S. It cannot make near the process horsepower and carries 200 pounds of ballast. I'm in favor of changing the weight calculation.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Do me a favor (as I love these cars), detail all of the engine mods you have done and the resultant whp.
 
callard said:
Once again, I want to chime in about the Porsche 911 in IT- S. It cannot make near the process horsepower and carries 200 pounds of ballast. I'm in favor of changing the weight calculation.
Click to expand...

If you mean the basic ITS calculation with the pounds per hp factor as the variable, don't bother.
You might lose weight, but everyone else will as well, and you will be right back where you started.

The issue with the car is that the ITAC, (Peter Keane at the time) didn't want to accept the real output that they make. He said they could do better, and reminded us all that fuel pumps are free. (Including mech injection)

I tried as hard as I could and the number you see is as far as they were willing to bend.
 
lateapex911 said:
If you mean the basic ITS calculation with the pounds per hp factor as the variable, don't bother.
You might lose weight, but everyone else will as well, and you will be right back where you started.
Click to expand...

Well, sort of. All those cars Jeff mentioned exceed process power. If the multiplier were to change, and those cars classed with 'what we know', their weight largely stays the same while everyone else would go down.

AGAIN!!! This is just banter and a concept. No actions of proposals currently I am sure.
 
lateapex911 said:
Ahhh, yes, gotcha. Trouble is that lots of folk wouldn't make the new weight.
Click to expand...

That would be part of an analysis I am sure. If people can't make weight the ITAC would have to decide what is best for the class, moving those cars down to ITA or weighting 'up' the cars that are out of spec in ITS.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Well, sort of. All those cars Jeff mentioned exceed process power. If the multiplier were to change, and those cars classed with 'what we know', their weight largely stays the same while everyone else would go down.

AGAIN!!! This is just banter and a concept. No actions of proposals currently I am sure.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the process account for deviating from the class multiplier, on a case-by-case basis if the "what we know" data are compelling? Or is the feeling that since there are so many cars that exceed process power, that the class multiplier is off? I saw what, 5 or 6 cars listed as exceeding process power, out of how many cars are classified in ITS? It sounds like addressing the individual outliers would impact less cars (and drivers) than changing the class multiplier (Miller ratio).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top