January FasTrack is up!

What's the stock bore on an E36 throttle body?

Also, what happened to intake restrictors being used in the 'most extreme' situations? I'm surprised that they would go this route, rather than adding some lead to the car first. I forget, did Darin or any of the other ITAC members post what the process-derived weight for the E36 325 would be?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Items of note:

- Why the goofy wording on sensor resistors? "Resistors however may be installed between the sensor effected and the unmodified harness"? OK, so if I want to install a resistor, and that sensor uses a proprietary plug, I've got to disconnect that plug and build another wiring harness with another set of OEM plugs in order to fit the resistor? Micromanagement at its worst.

- Why wait 'til 2006 for the crankshaft pullies?!? This is not a major deal; make it available upon publication date! This is certainly less of a deal than the BMW t-body restrictor note. Frustrating.

- I'm glad to see the B14 200SX SE-R moved to ITA from ITS. However, wasn't the whole point of putting the B13 Sentra SE-R at 2490 pounds and the NX2000 at 2515 pounds because the NX has the bigger brakes? Guess what, the B14 SE-R has the bigger brakes, thus it should also be 2515 pounds.
(Edit: someone just told me the 200SX SE-R did not actually get the bigger brakes...is that correct? If so, I retract this point.)

- Creation of a Spec Miata Advisory Committee. Love to be a fly on the wall for those meetings.

- BMW throttle body restrictor: uh, like, wow. Cool? Not totally surprising but that kinda came out of nowhere. Or did it?


[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited November 23, 2004).]
 
I think the restrictor is a great call by the ITAC!! The E36's I've seen can already be hard on tires and brakes. The issue was primarily power related. We'll see how it turns out.

I assume the ITAC had access to a wide variety of past data on the effect of restrictors when making this decision.
 
A cautionary tale as we move foward with PCAs - here is what we do NOT want them to become:

SSC
1. Remove 150lbs from the SSC 2001-02
Dodge Neons. (Meindl) Based on the
results of the 2004 Runoffs, the car
appears to fall within the performance
parameters as specified.

Things about this that are bad...

1. Allowing people to even ask for a weight break, motivated by desire to improve their competitive situation

2. Consideration of that request by the powers that be

3. Disallowing said request based on results from ONE RACE.

I'll say it again: I am quietly optimistic about the implementation of PCAs but the very second that an entrant is allowed, through formal means or otherwise, to request a weight reduction, the system is one irreversible step toward being AFU.

I trust that this hasn't happened yet, right guys?

K
 
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Items of note:

- Why the goofy wording on sensor resistors? "Resistors however may be installed between the sensor effected and the unmodified harness"? OK, so if I want to install a resistor, and that sensor uses a proprietary plug, I've got to disconnect that plug and build another wiring harness with another set of OEM plugs in order to fit the resistor? Micromanagement at its worst.
Click to expand...

Exactly! See my post on the installation of aftermarket EMSs. In that thread NO ONE answered the direct question that was posed in the first post about why the double standard on allowing electrical modifications but making it harder than it needs to be to perform that modification. They'll allow you to go full bore on engine managment but make it more difficult and expensive to install it. And then we'll listen to people complain about it being hard and expensive and it shouldn't be allowed. Either allow the modification in it's simplest form or outlaw it all together is my theory.



------------------
Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv
 
Originally posted by Knestis:I'll say it again: I am quietly optimistic about the implementation of PCAs but the very second that an entrant is allowed, through formal means or otherwise, to request a weight reduction, the system is one irreversible step toward being AFU.
Click to expand...

Kirk,

I agree, but only after all the cars in the ITCS have been run through 'the process', and everyone's had the same chance to get their spec weight set the same way. And if you're going to not allow member-initiated requests for weight reduction, you should also not allow member-initiated requests for reclassification. They both fall under the PCA umbrella.


Couple of other interesting observations:

It'll be interesting to see how the new pace/start rule plays out.

Looks like SSB/C could become T4/5

Interesting that only the Beetle 1.8T cars were classed in T3 (or did I miss the Golf/Jetta/Passat being classed their earlier?)

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Greg Amy wrote:
"- However, wasn't the whole point of putting the B13 Sentra SE-R at 2490 pounds and the NX2000 at 2515 pounds because the NX has the bigger brakes? Guess what, the B14 SE-R has the bigger brakes, thus it should also be 2515 pounds.
(Edit: someone just told me the 200SX SE-R did not actually get the bigger brakes...is that correct? If so, I retract this point.)

Retract away, Greg! :-) The B14 chassis used the smallest brakes of all the SE-Rs. In fact, upgrading a 200SX SE-R to the NX2000 brakes is one of the more popular mods for the street.

Tim Rogers
-Future ITA NX2000 racer
 
So, the engineers have finally revealed their intolerance for the messier aspects of the club. The suggestions to not allow a member to make a request of the CRB and to not allow the CRB to reply are exactly the kind of thing that gives internet forums a bad name.

Your way or the highway, eh, boys.
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
A cautionary tale as we move foward with PCAs - here is what we do NOT want them to become:

SSC
1. Remove 150lbs from the SSC 2001-02
Dodge Neons. (Meindl) Based on the
results of the 2004 Runoffs, the car
appears to fall within the performance
parameters as specified.

Things about this that are bad...

1. Allowing people to even ask for a weight break, motivated by desire to improve their competitive situation

2. Consideration of that request by the powers that be

3. Disallowing said request based on results from ONE RACE.

I'll say it again: I am quietly optimistic about the implementation of PCAs but the very second that an entrant is allowed, through formal means or otherwise, to request a weight reduction, the system is one irreversible step toward being AFU.

I trust that this hasn't happened yet, right guys?

K
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about the making a decision like that.

I will disagree however on your request scenario. Th ITAC WILL review and consider each letter it receives. Just because you can request it certainly doesn't mean it will be approved.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Also, what happened to intake restrictors being used in the 'most extreme' situations?

Well, the E36 IS and extreme situation. It wins everywhere, all the time. The frontrunning cars at the ARRC were in cruise mode from the green flag. I'll bet my next paycheck that both of the ARC Motorsports cars (found legal after a lonnngggg time in impound) could go alot faster. They just didn't have to.
Many folks agree that the car shouldn't have been classed in IT in the first place, so measures had to be taken and taken NOW.

The other stuff...
As Andy mentioned, I like the fact that changes are member driven and apparently now all letters get read and get some sort of response. Members should be allowed to ask for anything, no matter how silly or unfounded, and we have to trust the ITAC and Board to do the right thing.
Plain and simple.
Trust me, neither you nor your wallet wants it any other way.

The SCCA, like our government, might not be perfect, but its damned sure the best thing out there. And its getting better every day lately.
 
so where is the data used to calculate the size of the bmw restrictor plate? what was the target hp desired? was it tested? is this a swag?
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Also, what happened to intake restrictors being used in the 'most extreme' situations? </font>
Click to expand...

I wrote that because I assumed (we all know what happens when you assume), based on the way the PCA rule was written, that lead would have been the preferred route. Usually, "most extreme" measures are used after other measures do not achieve the desired effect. Couple that w/ the fact that the E36 runs so far below its curb weight, I would have thought they would have thrown some lead at it first.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

/edit for typo

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited November 24, 2004).]
 
Same here Bill, pretty shocking to me. Thought things like restrictors weren't to be used in IT, and that the pretty clear solution was to (in my view BMW guys, I know you may disagree) correct the weight.
 
Bening new, but having attended a few IT races and seen some mighty fast BMWs, it seems weight would have been a better route. When I started looking at race weights for my own car on another thread then looked at racer jakes (?) website with IT cars listed the BMW is odd in that it races a good 300-400 lbs below the curb weight. I wasn't around years ago but I understand it used to race at a higher weight.

I suppose water under the bridge now, but, from my experience with many SB Fords I've owned a stock 302 (plus headers, no cats, 42lbs fuel pressure, 16 deg tim, 8.4 comp, stock cam) that breathed through a 55mm tbody has put down more than 250hp to the wheels. Sure, not the same motor or comparison, but similar and maybe the plate won't be a big deal when all said and done. Sure hope they hooked one up to a dyno and tested it or had a good engineer runs some numbers on the size before putting it out there.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 24, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by mlytle:
so where is the data used to calculate the size of the bmw restrictor plate? what was the target hp desired? was it tested? is this a swag?
Click to expand...

SCA Pro has years of experience with the BMW I-6 in World Challenge and most recently in SSB with the Z4 (all pertaining to restrictor plates and equity). There is plenty of info to draw upon.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Tim, so noted on the SE-R! Whew, my plans for world dominance continue onward...! <grin>

As to the BMW restrictor: well, it's really specious for me to say something like this, because I don't drive one. However, if I did, and if I had to accept that *something* was going to be done to my car to slow it down, then I would much rather have a t-body restrictor than lead.

What's the root "problem" with the car? Too much power. Do I hear any complaints about its handling or braking advantages? Nope. So, what's the obvious solution? Less power. How to do it? Restrict airflow.

Lead, on the other hand, not only affects acceleration but it affects braking, handling, tire wear, etc. I'd personally rather drive a lighter, less powerful car than a heavier, powerful car.

Frankly, given that *something* was going to be done, this is the best way to do it. Choke the airflow on Goliath a bit and watch a handful of the best-handling GT cars available duke it out nose-to-tail. Adding a t-body restrictor is a direct answer to the root issues "we" have with the car.

Well done, guys.

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