January FasTrack is up!

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
... As Kirk pointed out, this kind of thing creates the perception that things are not entirely above board. ...
Click to expand...

I'd like to clarify my thoughts on this point...

As I mentioned, I totally understand why the ITAC doesn't just put every decision out for dicsussion before they make it. Geo is absolutely right that someone is ALWAYS going to find something to bitch about, if it costs them perceived competitive advantage.

Further - and this might surprise some folks - I'm pretty OK with the idea that, once the weight is ballparked by some back-of-the-napkin power/weight math, the last +/-100 pounds can get determined subjectively, considering other aspects of the car's design - even without a published formula.

I just don't like the idea of the system becoming reactive to each individual member's desire to gain an advantage over other models in his or her region.

K

EDIT - I'd love to have those who have complained about the e36 restrictor addition post and tell us exactly what data they would accept as sufficient evidence that the change was necessary. My guess is that nobody will be able to answer that question...

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited November 28, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...if an ITS-prep E36 could compete w/ a BMWCCA E36 w/ open cams and larger brakes, I see that as supporting evidence for the car probably being an overdog in ITS.
Click to expand...

Bigger picture--The JP class allows free lift and duration but specifically states "no other internal engine changes allowed"...further, their rules state "aftermarket engine management systems not allowed". So, take the JP car give it cams and bigger brakes. Give me an ITS E36 with my Motec, port matching and small compression bump and perhaps we have a good race...irrelevent to whether the ITS E36 is an overdog or not (which I believe it is).

In fairness, my browsing of the BMWCCA JP rules also show that flwheel and spoiler rules are more liberal, while shock rules are more conservative than the ITS rules.

The BMWCCA doesn't want your otherwise ITS legal car showing up with the addition of big cam, big brakes and lightweight flywheel and expect to be able to play.
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
The way I see it, the BMWCCA is throwing its members a bone by allowing them to compete in cars prepared to another series' rules. How often do you see the SCCA do that? I see it as his wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Disingenuous, especially in light of how much of a perceived (and apparently validated) overdog the car is in ITS.
Click to expand...

I don't know that is throwing them a bone as much as it is allowing others to come play so that they (BMWCCA) have more revenue. What is wrong with that?

I also don't know so much about having his cake and eating it too, he went from having two good options to two not as good options. I'd be a little perturbed too.

Again, I am not arguing that the BMW is not an overdog in ITS. I am also not attacking their decision to put a restrictor on it. I am just saying that 'we' as a group get tweaked enough when a rule change makes our car less competitive in our own series, how would you feel if that same rule made it less competitive in two series at the same time?
 
Originally posted by mlytle:
when the playing field gets leveled...that is pretty funny. there are what? three cars that are in the "competitive" group in its out of the couple pages that are classified? putting a restrictor plate on just e36's ain't helping that situation. those three cars are the only ones the top ita cars can't beat. some wholesale reclassing is in order, not just a targeting of the e36.
Click to expand...

The other perspective (one that I agree with) is that when prepared to the limit of the rules there is only one ITS car to have. Maybe, the restrictor plate will make it three. Maybe it will be one, just not the BMW? I don't think we can ever get to the point where all the cars listed in the ITS will be capable of winning, that doesn't mean efforts shouldn't be made to give us more than one choice of vehicle capable of winning (when all the vehicles are prepared and driven to the limit of the rules--budget not a concern). It doesn't have to be an all or nothing. If you wanted all cars in ITS to be able to compete for the win, the BMW would have to get an even smaller restrictor, the Rx7 and Z's one too, albeit a little larger than the BMW's. What is the difference? The BMW still gets knocked down a peg or two relative to the others.
 
Ed,

You infer that you think we operate in secret when you ask us for the data, I give you the information, then you tell me you have seen no data. Actually, you infer that you don't trust me or the committee. I gave you a number, a car and names. I asked you earlier, what is enough PROOF? Hard copies? At some point there has to be a bit of trust, and I don't see it from you.

The process is pretty simple. We evaluated the cars performance at 10/10ths and its documented power output. It then falls to us as an agenda item.

We debate it, both on a conference call and on an ITAC web board. We then make a recommendation knowing that we have weight and a restrictor to work with. The agreed upon recommendation is sent to the CRB. The CRB weighs our input and then MAKES THE DECISION based on their experience and the data they have at hand.

And I hope you are joking about just changing the oil and plugs on your E36 as your 'engine program'. Most don't know that you were in a year end points race (for first) in the NERRC Series up until the last checkered flew.

Bill,

Your comments on the ITAC / CRB interaction is nothing I can comment on. It happens how it happens. If you would like to see the 'process' on how things manuver through the system changed, I suggest you contact the CRB directly.

I won't answer the question on the weight of the E36 because only bad things can come of it. Plenty on complaining will go on and we will get tons of letters from people asking where THEIR car would fall if it was classed today. It's water under the bridge and we can only deal with what is in print.

I can tell you this: In my opinion, the E36 is underweight AND the power potential was underestimated. Those two things combined put the car where it is...an overdog.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Marshall,

Not for nothing, but what does one series have to do w/ the other? The fact that you have an additional series to race in, and that you can be competitive in that series w/o any changes to your car, is, IMHO, a really nice bonus that not many people have. To come here and complain that a rule change that addresses a strongly perceived inequity in one series, because it impacts a totally unrelated series (that many in the first series can't participate in), is disingenuous at best.
Click to expand...

bill, go back and actually read my intro to that paragraph..

marshall
 
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
If you wanted all cars in ITS to be able to compete for the win, the BMW would have to get an even smaller restrictor, the Rx7 and Z's one too, albeit a little larger than the BMW's. What is the difference? The BMW still gets knocked down a peg or two relative to the others.
Click to expand...

my point was not to add more restrictors, my point was the last line of my post. wholesale reclassification is in order, not just picking on one car.
 
Originally posted by mlytle:
oh cool, us "midpack" drivers with 9.5 / 10 built e36 cars will now have to invest $4k in a motec to keep up with the 30 year old z cars with drum brakes. sounds like a good investment to me. not.

this isn't the first, but gotta love scca rule changes that cost competitors thousands of dollars in new costs and even more in reduced value of the car.
Click to expand...

Huh? So what you're saying is that the car was just fine before, because you didn't have to prep to the max to be competitive with those who DID prep to the max? Sounds to me like the car IS an overdog, and the easy life is coming to a close.

Don't drag the stupid ECU rule into this...it's really irrelevant. The bottom line was that the car was an overdog when prepped to the max and driven by great drivers compared to other equal prep/driver combos.

If someone can provide proof that the car is indeed NOT an overdog, then fine...but until then, I have a hard time accepting that folks are upset that they will now be required to do their homework to run at the front.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

First off, I said perception.
Click to expand...

So noted.

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Also, your comment incates that you don't believe that a committee such as the ITAC can be totally above board, and get anything accomplished. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, that's just the way I read it.
Click to expand...

OK, fair enough. I think the connotation of "above board" is pretty harsh, but I'll operate under the assumption you didn't mean it to be.

What I am trying to say is that if all thinking and data that was considered in all decision making were published, the committee would become mired in minutiae from comments and arguments about all sorts of things.

Some will agree and some will disagree. In the end, it's not my call. But we do try to give good feedback on important issues and we always seek good information whether publicly or privately.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
My understanding of how to document ITS E36 power potential:

Call Bimmerworld. Ask.
Click to expand...

Those fellows do and have been reading here I'm sure. I doubt a straight answer ever would or will come from that camp now as they are in the business of building E36s and selling them. I am no insinuating anything torward Bimmerworld, but I feel that at this time answering that question would be counter-productive from a business perspective and from the perspective of helping this thread.

Seems the easy solution would be for a fine upstanding ITS E36 person prepped 10/10ths (Motec etc.) to head to a dynojet and put this "BMW Power" discussion to rest. Maybe a board collection could even pay for the fees? And, maybe they could do it before and after restrictor to really give folks something to talk about.

Ron


------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!
 
Originally posted by mlytle:
my point was not to add more restrictors, my point was the last line of my post. wholesale reclassification is in order, not just picking on one car.
Click to expand...

I disagree... We have hard proof that the BMW is at least 100lbs too light to "fit" into ITS, based on real dyno numbers that one of your own has sent us, and his numbers were on the "average" side of what is said to be possible. Further, prior to the entrance of the BMW, we had several cars that were "competitive" with each other in ITS.

Traditionally, it has always been the case that a very few cars were the ones that mixed up a class. In ITA, it's the Integra, the 240SX, and the CRX. This isn't just speculation, it's based on real hp numbers correlated with real on-track performance (in other words, the mechanical specs and estimates of potential seem to be validated by the on-track performance of these cars).

WHY would you say a "wholesale reclassification" is in order, when an adjustment to a few cars would restore the balance?

Here's a silly question to some I'm sure, but we know that the BMWs have been torn down in the past, and I'm assuming at the ARRC... Were the Mazdas??? If so, who and what was the result??

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by rlearp:
Those fellows do and have been reading here I'm sure. I doubt a straight answer ever would or will come from that camp now as they are in the business of building E36s and selling them. I am no insinuating anything torward Bimmerworld, but I feel that at this time answering that question would be counter-productive from a business perspective and from the perspective of helping this thread.

Seems the easy solution would be for a fine upstanding ITS E36 person prepped 10/10ths (Motec etc.) to head to a dynojet and put this "BMW Power" discussion to rest. Maybe a board collection could even pay for the fees? And, maybe they could do it before and after restrictor to really give folks something to talk about.

Ron
Click to expand...

Ron,

While I understand your premise, I don't think it's practical. If *I* had spent the money on the talent and knowledge that Bimmerworld and Rebello possess, and created a 215+WHP monster, WHY would I want to prove to everyone that it was an overdog? It's completely counter-productive.

I, as a competitor in life AND on the track, would exploit any competitiove advantage I found within the rules - so why would I hand that back to anyone on a silver platter?

On rare occasion will you find someone who did all his own work, spent the money, sold the car and then is willing to share his info.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
No disrespect intended to the BMW guys - because I know some of you and I know you are good people...BUT:

This is sour grapes. The cars at the top prep level are very powerful. MORE powerful than either yours Rob or yours Ed. Nick has the on-track data to prove that. He loses 5 car-lengths to the fast Bimmers on the back of RA but loses nothing to your car at Pocono...without MOTEC etc, you just aren't making the power that is possible with these cars.

AB
Click to expand...

Quote from Flatout Web page:
Leverone then led most of the race -- building a cushion in the tight infield portion of the course, only to watch Driscoll erase it on the long straights.


Not trying to be confrontational but you contradicted yourself.

I think that the races in the Northeast were as close as anyone with a rules book could create for two different makes of car. Our cars have identical horsepower to the super bimmers without Motec (yes we have proof) So, if the ultimate goal is to make for competitive racing without huge budgets then why not try to elimate the legality of Motec?

Now to remain competitive a front running E-36 HAS to have Motec ($7,000) and HAS to have a restrictor plate ($?) you just can't cut a piece of steel.
 
Rob,

Come on now. You were there. You know what the deal was. When Nick was in your draft, it was equal. When you got into Nick's draft, you had a slight advantage. Also remember that the RX-7 has an OD 5th gear of something like .86:1.

From YOUR website:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Race 1
biggrin.gif
riving the #25 Auto Technic BMW, Rob Driscoll started 4th on the ITS grid and 14th overall in a crowded group on the Long Course at Pocono. Rob quickly moved up to second on the first lap then patiently waited to the time was right and made the pass for the lead on the last lap after picking up a nice draft from Nick Leverone's Mazda RX-7.</font>
Click to expand...

It continues to amaze me that you think it's OK for your Bimmers to be competitive at 9/10th's when EVERYTHING else has to be at 10/10ths to keep up. Where is the equity in that???

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
I, as a competitor in life AND on the track, would exploit any competitiove advantage I found within the rules - so why would I hand that back to anyone on a silver platter?

On rare occasion will you find someone who did all his own work, spent the money, sold the car and then is willing to share his info.
Click to expand...

I see your point Andy, but I hope there are more of us out there that wish to be helpful to fellow comrades than secretive. I plan on posting dyno numbers I get from my Jensen the day I get them, right here for everone to see. And if anyone wants to know how it is done, I'll tell them - while I'm still racing the car, not once it is sold. I know, it is only a Jensen not a BMW and nobody cares, but, should by chance the numbers make people pay attention and care I'll gladly help them make their own Jensen.

Maybe I should be more competitive to play this game, but, to me it is amateur racing and a hobby/sport, not a stakes game. I'm plently competitive in life, I wouldn't be where I am or doing what I do without being that way. But in situations like this someone stepping forward could put the whole matter to rest in one fell swoop without revealing anything but some output figures. They don't have to reveal how it is done, just the output from their efforts.

------------------
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 29, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 29, 2004).]
 
Ron you are right, however, it handicaps their efforts. And most people aren't willing to do that when there is significant skin and money in the game. I wouldn't expect them to.

I have posted my dyno sheets on the rotory. Why? You can't do crap to them internally and there is no secret to how they make power, exhaust. Anyone can have a 175whp 13B for just over $3500. It ain't that easy with a piston motor.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
I was feeling all Sherlock Holmesy this morning, so I looked some stuff up...

This years ARRC saw stiff competition in the IT classes and SM. It also saw perfect weather. Many track records were broken (13 in all, including SM, ITA, ITC, IT7, and ITE)and a few classes (like ITC) had as many as 5 cars in track record territory.
Again, tough competition and perfect weather.

Then there was ITS.
There were no track records, and the car that has the track record (the one that won the ARRC btw) was a full 7/10ths of its own record. Same car, same driver.
Hmmm...
Sandbagging?
Mechanical issues (but it still won?)?
I dunno, but it seems strange to me.

Oh, there were nine E36s in the 26 cars that finished the ARRC race. SEVEN of them were in the top 10.

C'mon guys... Really.
There's about as much eveidence that you're ever going to get in IT racing that this car needs to be slowed down. If you own one, sorry. It just means that you now have to work as hard as everyone else to run up front.



------------------
#22 ITC Honda Civic
3rd Place 2004 ARRC
1st Place 2004 ARRC Enduro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top