ITS e36 BMW

Xian said:
No dog in the fight but this is where my head was going as I read thru the thread...



The absence of new-new car builds doesn't mean that they won't make the same gains as the top 6 S-cars. What it means is the same thing it's always meant in every class... lemmings. That car is winning races. That car looks competitive. Ima build that car. It's older, depreciated, and somewhat formulaic. WHY would anyone pick a newer, unproven chassis just to pour years and cubic dollars into prep when they can pick a proven winner?

I'm not trying to take the wind out of your sails or say that "watching" the class performance envelope isn't a good idea (it is) but maybe, just maybe, the idea of what "top build" gains should be is at fault? Maybe a top build should make more like 40% gains vs. 30%? I'd wager that this is the first time in history that IT cars have had folks pushing the envelope of development as consistently as we've seen. Add this to all the modern (and somewhat affordable) techniques for extracting power and you have what we've got now... cars making 40% gains. Think about it... we've got data acquisition, access to header/exhaust programs, cheap DIY ECU options, etc, etc. 20 years ago and the stuff being used in IT wouldn't have been at all uncommon in a "Pro Series" if at all.

Lightening up the cars the rest of the ITS field has the same net effect that "lead trophies" from the Runoff's USED to have in Prod. They cleaned up their act as the entire category lay on the death bed... I hope IT(S) finds a way to encourage new cars/builds/racers without resorting to the same sort of weight jiggering that almost killed Prod.
Click to expand...

See, when you say a "top build SHOULD make 40%" you are effectively agreeing me, so long as you are saying that "a top build should make 40% and still stay the same weight using the Process."

Because the only way to do that is change the class multiplier to reflect the reality of the situation. ALL of the front running cars in ITS, due to a shit ton of hard work and money spent, make more power than expected.
 
I guess what I do not understand is why so many are scared of dyno's.... The actual number doesn't matter but how it is relative to other cars. This is not a cheap sport. Why are we only responsible as a competitor to question others.... ? Who enforces the rule book? What about the guy who wins a lot of races and is called a cheater? Clearly GrandAm has a rule book but they still throw cars on dyno's to see if anything stands apart... Or even a reason to question the car or to see if there initial process is wrong. I think we could get past certain things like...... Guys feeling the need to used stronger parts in valve train to prevent costly failures .... Maybe they shouldn't be running rpms so high..... Maybe it is a true problem with that car.....

I think as a competitor it would be cool to know that weekend how much power people have and don't compared to you..... It could also hurt your feelings when you get beat. Why not publish hp targets.

Steve, I do see your point about hard work in finding power, but if you find 225whp for a RX7 is that good for IT? I just made up a ridiculous number , I know that is not to be true.

You guys do a great job. I just wish all the hard work that goes into writing rules could be followed with simple checks. It sounds like Greg Amy tried something like this with the whistler at a race.... I forget what his findings were but all must have been happy with the results... I really think this would help so many great drivers out there get more credit for their great driving and minimize the criticism some get. If I believed all the stories I heard I would think everybody cheats... And that just can't be true.... Like in everything , a few ruin things for many some times. There are more good people in the world than bad.

Keep up the good discussion ... Communication is good..... Opinions are good.... And then let the decision makes do their thing. Be proud if a rule is written because you used your skills to engineer something that surpasses what was thought not to be achievable .

Greg
 
It's a good discussion and it needs to happen, even if the end result is we do nothing (which I would prefer).

I 100% favor rules stability. I'm just afraid of someone addressing this problem who doesn't race in ITS and doesn't understand the dynamics of the class.
 
gpeluso said:
I guess what I do not understand is why so many are scared of dyno's.... The actual number doesn't matter but how it is relative to other cars.
Click to expand...
Not true, really. Per "the process", if a particular engine is found to consistently be making more than "process" power ("what we know") then it's pretty much the ITAC's/CRB's responsibility to re-classify the car using this "what we know".

It's for this reason that very few are willing to release their actual dyno numbers, unless of course they're making LESS than "process" power...in that case those numbers get tossed around for free...

- GA
 
what we are discussing here is a way to preserve parity long term. of all the classes in IT, ITS has the least problems. we certainly don't need to mess with it right now. but if most of what's running is over their classification power/weight, then the process isn't capturing those cars like it's suppsoed to and Jeff is correct that there will be a tipping point. if they are more than 5% past their classification gain, they should be corrected - that's not a rule change so much following the "rules" we already use. it's stability long term. yeah, right now that's irrelevant, through a lot of hard work there's good competition and good cars.

but if another BMW situation rolls around, a major overdog, we'd try to do what the process says to do and rerun it with known HP, or a gain that gets it close. it goes from overdog to out of the fight, becasue the "real" class target is 30+% gain, or whatever is actually being made. ditto an underdog - IF a car can't hit the "real" targets with development, then we don't have a rule to fix the situation, as the process tries to get stuff reasonably close to 12.9 lb per ACTUAL hp. I don't like it, but it COULD become the problem Jeff imagines, and it's worth discussing. his idea to change the process to reset the ITS miller ratio so the current crop of ITS cars on track stay at their current weight is a pretty fair way to do that so long as the ITAC/CRB/Membership STAY ON TOP OF DEVELOPMENT and continue to reclassify cars if and when they "need" it.

this isn't pro race rotation, using comp adjustments for the express purpose of weighing down the current generation of cars making them uncompetitive with the next generation once sorted (and thus keeping turnover high and the cars relevant). it's setting EVERYTHING, new and old, to the same band on the spectrum and keeping it there. it's the whole reason for the process.

if this means that the development goes away "because it won't pan out in the long term," then I don't know a solution other than to say "make shit up and leave it alone." a no-adjustments, ever, system could be as random in it's classification as desired. curb weights, hat pulls, asking my 2y.o. kid... wouldn't matter, the target is the top, whatever that is, and you build what you think can get there and sort it until it does or you give up. if that's preffered, fine. we can clean up the process language and remove the evaluation language from the ITCS and have much shorter con calls. I think it will Kill IT in the long run. changing agressively NOW could kill IT in the short term. the secret is to find a balance to impliment as needed.

please keep the ideas and comments flowing.
 
JeffYoung said:
Trust me when I say there is no easy button in making a Z car or a Miata or a 944s or a TR8 or a Mustang or an RX7 or an Integra exceed process power. No one is turning out turn key versions of these things ready to win races. The people who have gotten them where they are have done it they way Andy describes, with a lot of money and work on their own.

Adding several hundred pounds to all of those cars -- the ones actually running in ITS right now and the ones that were for the most part actually running in ITS before the E36 showed up -- would kill the class. I really think that is the key part of what you are missing. Essentially, for all pracical purposes, ALL of what really "is" ITS makes more power than the gain number assigned to them now.

The "fix" is to lower the power to weight multiplier in ITS, assign higher gain percentages to those cars, and the default to new cars coming into the class. That will balance the older cars versus the new, without dumping a few hundred pounds of lead on all of the cars in S.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I do race in S, I pay attention to the cars that are out there in the SEDiv and elsewhere, and I can tell you right now adding 200-300 lbs to the Z cars (marginal brakes as is), the RX7s (stressed to the max at 2680), my car (same), the Mustangs, Miatas, etc. will result in cars being parked just on the "hope" that new cars will be built.

Answer is clear.
Click to expand...

Believe me Jeff, I hear what you, Steve, etc. are saying. And you guys make compelling arguments for not adding weight to the current ITS front-runners. And you're absolutely right Steve, it's not fair to marginalize the folks that have put in cubic time and cubic dollars to develop their cars. You've convinced me that my initial take is probably not the best one. Well presented sir.

And Jeff, I think your suggestion that I bolded is a solid compromise. Figure out what the new Miller Ratio would be given a 35% gain for those cars (unless of course, you "what we know" says it really is closer to 40%) to keep their weights where they are, and re-process the rest of ITS at the standard 25% (or "whatever we know" says it should be). Doesn't marginalize the hard work and money that they front runners have put out, and gives someone that wants to run something else a shot.

But one thing I would make perfectly clear, is that once your car is shown to develop consistently more than process power, expect your multiplier to change, and you will get a lead trophy. And yeah, I know, this is getting dangerously close to 'competition adjustments'.

Greg Amy said:
Not true, really. Per "the process", if a particular engine is found to consistently be making more than "process" power ("what we know") then it's pretty much the ITAC's/CRB's responsibility to re-classify the car using this "what we know".

It's for this reason that very few are willing to release their actual dyno numbers, unless of course they're making LESS than "process" power...in that case those numbers get tossed around for free...

- GA
Click to expand...


Greg makes a very valid point about the "what we know" wording in the IT Ops manual.

I agree with you Jeff, not an easy solution. Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that any of the current top ITS cars were an EASY button. I was referring to the E36 325 pre-SIR.
 
JeffYoung said:
See, when you say a "top build SHOULD make 40%" you are effectively agreeing me, so long as you are saying that "a top build should make 40% and still stay the same weight using the Process."

Because the only way to do that is change the class multiplier to reflect the reality of the situation. ALL of the front running cars in ITS, due to a shit ton of hard work and money spent, make more power than expected.
Click to expand...

Agreed. So, if the class multiplier changes, what happens to all the cars that we don't "know" are making 40%? Do they stay the same or get a weight break?
 
So I'm sitting in a bar and thinking about cubic dollars and development and not many can beat my effort. There are still some IT'S guys who can give my top 9.5/10 ITR at a run because these kids can fucking drive the shit ou of a car and have money to wreck.

Why is there never enough chat about who cAn fucking drive and it's always about the car?

Ps can't wait to stomp all of you now that I put a new ecu in my car it makes so much Hp you will cry :-)

Ben

On edit the stomping will come from the better driving more than the ecu :-)
 
Last edited:
Xian said:
Yep, and my gripe as well... who's to say they can't/won't make the gains if the time and money went into the development?
Click to expand...

Well, the way the system/Process works -- the one we all bought into 4-5 years ago and all were committed to like a religion (and I include myself in that somewhat snarky comment) -- those cars get assigned a gain variable based on a 25% default with movement up or down if additional information shows they can make more or less power.

It's the subjective part, the soft spot, in the otherwise very objective process. Greg is certainly right that there is no incentive to disclose "above Process power" -- other than a sense o fairness and a desire to keep the racing as competitive as possible. We've been lucky so far in the sense that we've always been able to figure out if a car was an over or under Process power, but I agree the whole deal is starting to look more and more like Prod based comp adjustments and that is terrible for the category.

I'm not sure what the answer is at this point.
 
JeffYoung said:
I'm not sure what the answer is at this point.
Click to expand...

reprocess everything at 40%

that'll get the dyno sheets in.

seriously, if keeping it like it is is what everyone wants, let ST have the new cars and let IT become vintage racing. all good things...
 
benspeed said:
So I'm sitting in a bar and thinking about cubic dollars and development and not many can beat my effort.
Click to expand...

However, this is exactly the sort of thinking that gets people writing "My Borgwald GT only makes an 18.5% gain and my effort is maxed out. I need a weight break." But we're all guilty of the thought if we're honest with ourselves. There is always more to do, always. Any one of us can look at another's build and suggest an improvement.

Chip42 said:
reprocess everything at 40%

that'll get the dyno sheets in.
Click to expand...

It'd get dyno sheets in but unfortunately we would probably receive the sheets from a competitor's developmental point before the final iteration.



Jeff stated:

"RIGHT NOW, if we used to the Process AS IT STANDS -- and I think this is what you guys are missing (you too Christian) -- on the Z car, the RX7, the TR8, the Miata, the Mustangs, the 944s, the Corrado, the Prelude, the Integra, all of them -- ALL OF THEM gain several hundred pounds based on known developed rwhp. "​

No doubt if we applied the process with dyno hp that these cars would gain weight. Of the lot the only one that could take the weight is the Mustang since it is already racing at 300 lbs over weight. The Mustang spec weight needs to be up around 2725 to 2750 lbs anyhow. The rest of them, they could take very little, if any, additional weight.

But, do we really have a problem? There aren't many new cars with 150-190 stock horsepower that fit into S. We've had three notable additions that I can recall, the Pontiac Solstice, Mazda MX5, and the Subaru RS. Two of the three were not produced in large numbers and I suspect none have been built for ITS. Certainly there are MX5s for ITS but based on what I've seen I'm more worried about them running away with the class than the class running away with them. The low effort builds we've seen have been impressive. How's an MX5 going to respond with a serious development effort? I think it'll hold its own.

And if one or two examples of the Subaru or Pontiac show up, and don't compete well, we're not going to turn ITS upside down to make them competitive. At least I hope we're not going to do that. With a new chassis and build there are incredibly steep, and expensive, learning curves to be climbed. I know, and I'm nowhere near the end. The owners of the Subarus or Pontiacs will have to realize where they are in relation to other ITS cars with decades of development.
 
Last edited:
gpeluso said:
I guess what I do not understand is why so many are scared of dyno's.... The actual number doesn't matter but how it is relative to other cars. This is not a cheap sport. Why are we only responsible as a competitor to question others.... ? Who enforces the rule book? What about the guy who wins a lot of races and is called a cheater? Clearly GrandAm has a rule book but they still throw cars on dyno's to see if anything stands apart... Or even a reason to question the car or to see if there initial process is wrong. I think we could get past certain things like...... Guys feeling the need to used stronger parts in valve train to prevent costly failures .... Maybe they shouldn't be running rpms so high..... Maybe it is a true problem with that car.....

I think as a competitor it would be cool to know that weekend how much power people have and don't compared to you..... It could also hurt your feelings when you get beat. Why not publish hp targets.

Steve, I do see your point about hard work in finding power, but if you find 225whp for a RX7 is that good for IT? I just made up a ridiculous number , I know that is not to be true.

You guys do a great job. I just wish all the hard work that goes into writing rules could be followed with simple checks. It sounds like Greg Amy tried something like this with the whistler at a race.... I forget what his findings were but all must have been happy with the results... I really think this would help so many great drivers out there get more credit for their great driving and minimize the criticism some get. If I believed all the stories I heard I would think everybody cheats... And that just can't be true.... Like in everything , a few ruin things for many some times. There are more good people in the world than bad.

Keep up the good discussion ... Communication is good..... Opinions are good.... And then let the decision makes do their thing. Be proud if a rule is written because you used your skills to engineer something that surpasses what was thought not to be achievable .

Greg
Click to expand...

it almost sounds like you'd like to put the class on a dyno after a race. Might be fun. But, if I'm driving a car equipped with an ECU, I assure you I'll have a separate map that will be in effect for the dyno run, if needed, to ensure my car makes Process power at best.

I'd do it to protect myself from a dyno that makes odd number or isn't consistent. (In dynoing my last car, I'd say I got more dyno numbers that were suspicious or flat out wrong (180 ft lbs of tq for a 12A rotary? I wish!) ) as well as to protect my hard work. I think most of us would.

Unless there was language in the supps, or the class regs stating otherwise, such as they have for the Boxster spec class. (I think).

Gregs Whistler check was purely a displacement check I think, and was well received...it didn't pin down your hp, or your actal displacement or comp ratio, it merely was a red flag that was intended to ID gross issues.
 
benspeed said:
So I'm sitting in a bar and thinking about cubic dollars and development and not many can beat my effort. There are still some IT'S guys who can give my top 9.5/10 ITR at a run because these kids can fucking drive the shit ou of a car and have money to wreck.

Why is there never enough chat about who cAn fucking drive and it's always about the car?

Ps can't wait to stomp all of you now that I put a new ecu in my car it makes so much Hp you will cry :-)

Ben

On edit the stomping will come from the better driving more than the ecu :-)
Click to expand...

Simple, because we never talk about lap times and results. We only talk about factors that get run through the calculation.
 
Right now, there technically isn't a problem because most of the cars on grid have exceeded the process numbers so there is little outcry. I don't think there is an immediate action needed.
 
It's coming from a couple of the MX5 guys now.

We'll see how it pans out. I would prefer we do nothing as well, but if we get a request in to reprocess the Z cars or the RX7 or the 99 Miatas or my car or the INtegra or the Mustangs or the 944s or the 323 or the Corrado or the Prelude or the Integra (the list could go on), we've got an issue.
 
Jake,
I have raced in classes that are based on hp to weight ratio and the dyno was at the track..... Everything can be cheated... Just takes more work.... Standalone guys will get extra looks at... Sometimes at these races all ports needed to be taped over to avoid some types of reflashes..... Nothing perfect but can be used to scare people or help keep parity that's all...
Trust me... The more people with standalones the more people know tricks.....

Do you realize a person with a standalone can have traction control just by limiting throttle in certain conditions? I have not even heard of IT guys picking up on this stuff yet. Yes I have even seen guys have the ecu programmed to retard timing if the front wheels are not moving. Some organizations are starting to use traqmate data to compare competitor to competitor.. Once again same day relativity ....... You should hear the arguments about that due to cars running higher downforce compared to others that are not .

I personally wish a dyno was at more races just for the ability to find out problems or fine tuning with ecu.. My bmw has a standalone not because I wanted it but due to the fact the car would go into limp mode and it was the only way to get rid of traction control legally ... We pulled fuses ... Remove one or 2 sensors and before we new it... The car would not go over 50 mph. Better yet the drive by wire would sometimes be on a huge delay.. Haha was not a fun year. We learned a lot but $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Greg
 
gpeluso said:
Standalone guys will get extra looks at... Sometimes at these races all ports needed to be taped over to avoid some types of reflashes..... Nothing perfect but can be used to scare people or help keep parity that's all...
Trust me... The more people with standalones the more people know tricks.....
Click to expand...

You do know that some factory ECUs have more capability than Motecs, Megasquirts, Wolf, Electomotive, and other standalone units? I've got a factory ECU that I can change programs with a switch. On the fly. While the car is running. And it doesn't skip a beat, and it could make far less hp if one of the three loaded programs were instructed to do so. A standalone ECU doesn't require any more, or less, scrutiny than a factory ECU.

gpeluso said:
Do you realize a person with a standalone can have traction control just by limiting throttle in certain conditions? I have not even heard of IT guys picking up on this stuff yet.
Greg
Click to expand...

Yes, IT guiys have heard of such things. Slew rate based traction control with ignition cut/retard has been cheated up and installed in MSD boxes since the mid-90s. We discussed it on this board back in 2004/2005 as I recall. How many people do you know running MSD boxes? About anybody with a carbed car and more than a few with ECU based cars run MSDs. And, of course, folks can have traction control in stock and standalone ECUs.

If you're worried about cheating a dyno isn't going to solve it. It might help, but the real way to stop cheating is for competitors to police one another. It is a time honored technique that works when employed.
 
Last edited:
Ron,
Not really talking about cheating...... More about keeping parity with new and old....
Yes I know these things can be fudged. Yes I know about factory ecu capabilities. I just want IT to have a bright future and not become vintage racing. There is going to be a point with some of our top cars have issues finding legal parts. My rx7 tranny parts are getting tougher.. Look at 15x7 wheels that are not miata 4x100( getting slim pickings ) . Just want to help find a way to help the rule makers move forward... Get rid of the easy button car options.
I know everything can be cheated. Nothing will be perfect. It is just really cool to have different makes running for wins and using your cars strength against anothers weakness and certain cars better at certain tracks.

What's really cool is that there is no manufacturer politics in 5+ yr old cars like you see in some of the national classes.

Thanks guys... Just want to go to the track
Greg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top