January FasTrack is up!

Quickshoe · Dec 1, 2004

Originally posted by GregAmy:
...this change within IT will affect them for BMWCCA racing as well. To which, of course, I reply, "sorry!"

What if the rules were so different between NASA and SCCA Spec Miata classes the builders/drivers had to choose between one series or the other? Would the SCCA then be concerned about losing large numbers to another organization?

Granted, I know that the BMW situation is very different. The interest of all ITS entrants is more important than a few BMW entrants.

If I was an E36 ITS racer I would now be faced with the decision to build it for one series or the other. I'm not into sinking that kind of effort into a car to race for second. In this case, the SCCA ITS would be the easier, less costly transition, and I will probably continue to be competitive. However, if it proves to be too large of a burden to overcome, then I go JP or sell the car to someone content with second being the best possible result.

Note: The BMWCCA JP minimum weight for the e36 325 is what, 2646# w/driver? The ECU, port matching and .5 pt compression boost must really make the ITS cars a little stronger under the hood to overcome the brakes, downforce and weight.

lateapex911 · Dec 1, 2004

Ahhhh HA! NOW I get it...thanks Greg..

So ITS spec cars race against cars with bigger rotors, 4 piston calipers, bigger injectors, bigger cams and wings???

Sorry, but no ITS car should stand a chance against cars that are prepped to the max of the BMW rules and driven well! Those items are HUGE!

Sorry, but this "Now I can't compete in BMWCCA racing" is looking like a red herring to me...the cars never had a real chance anyway!

(and if they DID do well, as I am sure they did from time to time, it wasn't due to the equality between cars at full prep....)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

lateapex911 · Dec 1, 2004

Originally posted by Ron:
From an ITB guy moving the RX-7 down to B you better add a bunch of weight. A quick peek at the ARRC information shows that the top 3 RX-7's were at least a second a lap faster.

Ron
Fairly Fast Ford Mustang ITB

Ron, look into the Mazda section for lots of discussion regarding this move.

Also, keep in mind that a second over 1.75 minute lap time is fairly small. (Under 1%)

And...the rim size will be reduced by about 13%. A lot of weight? Probably not needed. Some weight, sure.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Greg Amy · Dec 1, 2004

At Lime Rock and NHIS an ITS/JP 325 won each JP race...

Indicating to me that the preparers of JP cars aren't as serious as the ITS boys. C'mon, Robbie, which would you rather have: Motec, 1/2 point compression, and port matching; or camshafts, injectors, big 4-piston brakes, big rotors, master cylinder, spoilers and wings, and remote reservoir shocks? If I gave you the option of competing in ITS with a JP car, which would *you* choose? I think the latter is the obvious choice.

If you disagree, then you must agree that it indicates the ITS E36s were unintended overdogs for *that* class as well. One or the other...

I sincerely doubt you're going to get too many BMWCCA folks crying over this, either.

Would the SCCA then be concerned about losing large numbers to another organization?

"Would" or "should"? SCCA has *never* shown any concern in that regard, it's usually the other way around. That's why these other clubs always accept the rules of the 800-pound gorilla into their midst.

A little competition is healthy, but given that the BMWCCA focuses on one marque, then the SCCA has absolutely no concern or interest about what they do.

...faced with the decision to build it for one series or the other.

That's silly, at least in the context you present it; they had that decision to make in the past and chose to build it to SCCA specs. (Edit: presumably, they chose the SCCA prep route because 1) it allowed them to race both series, and/or 2) they saw a competitive advantage in ITS. However, I sincerely doubt the BMWCCA intended the car to be competitive in JP, it was simply offering a place for the ITS boys to play; if it ended up that the ITS car was the prep level to beat (highly unlikely) then everyone would prep to ITS level because it's a competitive advantage.)

Note that the E36's legality for BMWCCA JP has not been compromised one whit; the car will still be legal for BMWCCA competition. Further, its position of competitiveness has not yet even been tested. If it's truly the dominant car that Robbie indicates then it probably needed a bit of a competition adjustment anyway, just as it did in SCCA.

So, why in the hell are folks already starting to slit their wrists in angst? Do you think the temper tantrums and threats of leaving are going to get anyone to change their mind?

The BMWCCA JP minimum weight for the e36 325 is what, 2646# w/driver?

Where'd you see that? I read it as 2900 pounds (page 41). Even they indicate the factory weight on the car is almost 3100 pounds.

Bottom line: what happens in BMWCCA competition is interesting and intriguing, but has absolutely no bearing on what SCCA should or should not do. Feel fortunate, not entitled, that you have multiple choices of clubs and venues for competition.

GregA

[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited December 01, 2004).]

ddewhurst · Dec 1, 2004

***And...the rim size will be reduced by about 13%.***

Jake, two questions.

1st. Who says the wheel size will be changed ?

2nd. In what year will the wheel size be changed ?

Have Fun

David

Knestis · Dec 1, 2004

Why WOULDN'T the wheel size be changed if the RX7 were moved to B??

While I don't know enough about it to really have an informed opinion of whether it should happen, I am having a difficult time believing that if the 7 DOES get moved to ITB, that it would take its 7" wheels with it.

The suggestion in that other strand that it would be appropriate to ask "to use 7" wheels so we did not have to go buy new wheels" struck me as particularly wacky anti-logic.

K

lateapex911 · Dec 1, 2004

In another thread I offered to run around Lime Rock in nothing but my checkered flag if the RX-7 was left in A with a "street port"...and I am sure I will be accompanied by pigs flying, and the sound of hell freezing over. Just after that occurs, the RX-7 will be moved to ITB, on 7" rims!

So, in plain terms...ITB runs on 6" rims...duh.

IF the RX-7 gets moved to B, there is NO way it will go on 7"ers. No way. Fairs fair. (if it were to be moved into B on 7"ers, I doubt I would dare show my face !)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

mlytle · Dec 1, 2004

Originally posted by GregAmy:
Indicating to me that the preparers of JP cars aren't as serious as the ITS boys. C'mon, Robbie, which would you rather have: Motec, 1/2 point compression, and port matching; or camshafts, injectors, big 4-piston brakes, big rotors, master cylinder, spoilers and wings, and remote reservoir shocks? If I gave you the option of competing in ITS with a JP car, which would *you* choose? I think the latter is the obvious choice.

If you disagree, then you must agree that it indicates the ITS E36s were unintended overdogs for *that* class as well. One or the other...

I sincerely doubt you're going to get too many BMWCCA folks crying over this, either.

Would the SCCA then be concerned about losing large numbers to another organization?

Click to expand...

\"Would\" or \"should\"? SCCA has *never* shown any concern in that regard, it's usually the other way around. That's why these other clubs always accept the rules of the 800-pound gorilla into their midst.

A little competition is healthy, but given that the BMWCCA focuses on one marque, then the SCCA has absolutely no concern or interest about what they do.

...faced with the decision to build it for one series or the other.

Click to expand...

That's silly, at least in the context you present it; they had that decision to make in the past and chose to build it to SCCA specs. (Edit: presumably, they chose the SCCA prep route because 1) it allowed them to race both series, and/or 2) they saw a competitive advantage in ITS. However, I sincerely doubt the BMWCCA intended the car to be competitive in JP, it was simply offering a place for the ITS boys to play; if it ended up that the ITS car was the prep level to beat (highly unlikely) then everyone would prep to ITS level because it's a competitive advantage.)

Note that the E36's legality for BMWCCA JP has not been compromised one whit; the car will still be legal for BMWCCA competition. Further, its position of competitiveness has not yet even been tested. If it's truly the dominant car that Robbie indicates then it probably needed a bit of a competition adjustment anyway, just as it did in SCCA.

So, why in the hell are folks already starting to slit their wrists in angst? Do you think the temper tantrums and threats of leaving are going to get anyone to change their mind?

The BMWCCA JP minimum weight for the e36 325 is what, 2646# w/driver?

Click to expand...

Where'd you see that? I read it as 2900 pounds (page 41). Even they indicate the factory weight on the car is almost 3100 pounds.

Bottom line: what happens in BMWCCA competition is interesting and intriguing, but has absolutely no bearing on what SCCA should or should not do. Feel fortunate, not entitled, that you have multiple choices of clubs and venues for competition.

GregA

[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited December 01, 2004).]

i, like others, chose to prep to ITS rule so that i could be competitive in both series. yes, the ITS trim on paper is an underdog in BMW JP racing. In actual practice, an ITS car with a good SCCA driver can be competitive with a JP car. definitely down about 25hp, but still in the game. with any additional loss in hp (read restrictor plate) the ITS deficit will be very hard to overcome.

saying racing in other venues has no bearing scca decisions is sticking one's head in the sand. all these organizations are competing for a limited racing audience. changes which affect a car in another venue will change the bottom participation line. there are a bunch of ITS BMW's that run both groups. there are people like snk328 and my self that chose ITS prep so we can run in multiple arenas. changes like this can and will affect those participation decisions.

issues like this, and the perceived loss of cars because of not wanting to race against the big bad e36s, all must be part of decisions on car classification and rule changes. scca ain't the only game in town. it may have been the 800lb gorilla in the past, but it is probably only a 400lb gorilla today.

m

lateapex911 · Dec 1, 2004

So I guess the question is...how many E36s will choose to go race in ONLY BMWCCA racing without the restrictor?

I'm not sure I follow the logic of the BMWCCA rule set, in that it insists that ITS cars, which are grossly underprepared compared to the other cars in the class, run in exactly ITS condition. As the SCCA had the issue with an obvious overdog hurting the class structure, it had to do what it had to do. Why doesn't BMWCCA add a line stating that the cars need not compete in exact ITS form..the plate may be ommited. No harm could come....the cars are huge underdogs even without the restrictor.

Would these E36 drivers have preffered weight instead of a restrictor??

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Quickshoe · Dec 1, 2004

Originally posted by GregAmy:
they had that decision to make in the past and chose to build it to SCCA specs. (Edit: presumably, they chose the SCCA prep route because 1) it allowed them to race both series, and/or 2) they saw a competitive advantage in ITS.

based on your edit comments, it seems you understand where I was coming from.

if it ended up that the ITS car was the prep level to beat (highly unlikely) then everyone would prep to ITS level because it's a competitive advantage.)

Not so black and white. If the tracks that you raced were HP tracks, the ITS spec car has the advantage there. Why would you build a JP spec car unless you liked the bling factor of wings and and big rotors (again emphasis on hp tracks where the additional aero drag-downforce and bigger brake package actually had very little postitive affect on your lap times.
If we were talking about a handling track or really long races where brake package and aero downforce might be more good than bad, it might be another story. Don't discount peoples' love for big wings and 4 piston calipers, they might go JP just because they love the look.

From an earlier post I wrote "The BMWCCA JP minimum weight for the e36 325 is what, 2646# w/driver?"

Greg wrote :Where'd you see that? I read it as 2900 pounds (page 41).

I looked up the weight specs in the glossary. Page 38 shows the JP weights to be initially calculated at a minimum of 14.0#'s per stock HP (2646#) It would appear that the spec on page 41 would supercede what I found (which appears to be a guidline on establishing initial weights).

Lastly, I cited the weight spec with the intent of presenting both sides, not ommiting details that would support only one side of the ITS vs. JP debate. I am not biased in this. I don't have an ITS or JP car.

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited December 01, 2004).]

wburstein · Dec 1, 2004

I am really trying to understand this concern about restrictor plates affecting BMWCCA racing.

First of all, it appears that it should only take a few minutes to add or remove the restrictor plate. I KNOW that mlyttle can do this and suspect that even the folks that have a shop prep their cars can remove four bolts?, take out the plate, and bolt it back together again.

Since there seems to still be a big deal about this, is there some associated tuning that is also affected? I thought with a MAF system, this would not be so. Perhaps it becomes an issue when a Motec is involved?

Please help me to understand the real issue here.

------------------
Wayne Burstein
WDC Region, ITS #10, Datsun 240Z
www.mountainmotorsports.net

[This message has been edited by wburstein (edited December 01, 2004).]

Quickshoe · Dec 1, 2004

GregAmy,

I guess it still isn't clear...anyone else want to give it a shot?

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited December 01, 2004).]

mlytle · Dec 1, 2004

hi wayne!
you can race an e36 in bmwcca in jp class in two configurations, its or jp. you have to follow the rules of one or the other. you cannot mix. (bmwcca prepared class rules evidentally started out originally as improved touring spec, but there has been significant rules creep over the years.) if you race as an its car, you have to meet all the its rules, including the restrictor. if you take the restrictor out, you are illegal as an its car. if you have used spherical bearings in your its suspension, you are illegal as a jp car. end result, you can't race an its spec car without a restrictor. with a restrictor, you have no chance against a jp car. (assuming, of course, that the restrictor reduces hp by some mystical amount enough to stop e36's from being the "overdog" in its.)

yes, i could take a restrictor out in a few minutes, but then i couldn't race legally in either group...

disclaimer - this issue is irrelevant whining and not pertinent to the narrow scca only view of the world held by an apparently large percentage of the topic contributors....those persons may disregard and do not need to reply.

)

was there anything else of interest in the jan fastrack?

marshall

wburstein · Dec 1, 2004

Marshall,

Thanks for clarifying that -- it must be past my bedtime...

I guess one option that might make sense is if the BMWCCA ammended their rules to allow the E36 to run in ITS trim without the restrictor plate. They would still be down on horsepower compared to the JP prepped cars, but it would bring BMWCCA racing back to the present scenario that appears to be working. Not having raced in that venue, I am not aware of how difficult it would be to make such a rule change.

From the BMW tuners I have been talking to, the jury is still out whether the restrictor plate will bring the E36's acceleration down to the same level as the other cars in the class. I have not found anyone that has done any dyno testing yet...

I think that 2005 will be an interesting year for ITS!

------------------
Wayne Burstein
WDC Region, ITS #10, Datsun 240Z
www.mountainmotorsports.net

seckerich · Dec 1, 2004

BMWCCA is very similar to SCCA when it states that other preperation levels are allowed with no cross preperation. SCCA allows IT cars to compete in autocrosses in their street prepared classes is COMPLETE IT TRIM--PERIOD. You may not pick and choose from the two sets of rules to get the best of both. The best bet for you BMW guys is to petition BMWCCA to allow you to compete without the restrictor as you will be racing with cars that have a proven comperable performance as proved in the past. In that series you compete against cars with a higher level of prep--this is not true in SCCA.

Knestis · Dec 2, 2004

While I'm sympathetic to those who've made their car choices and are retroactively diddled on the BMWCCA front, there are simply too many considerations WITHIN SCCA club racing, to put another club's issues into the mix for determining IT car specs.

Now, if the issue is whether SCCA recognizes that they run the risk of losing participants to other clubs? That's a strategic question that has to get shaken out in policy LONG before anyone sits down to decide what a specific car should weigh.

Whatever, this is a non-issue as far as the official ITAC/CRB PCA process is concerned - and appropriately so, I think.

K

lateapex911 · Dec 2, 2004

What about the flipside? Knowing that the E36 is being brought back to the fold, will other non E-36 drivers who are either hibernating, or standing by waiting, be inspired to jump in and run other cars?

Will the net net on this deal be a more balanced class AND greater (not less) subscription?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

JeffYoung · Dec 2, 2004

I had a friend run the restrictor size by an engineer who ran some calculations. The conclusion was that the BMW would still flow 1000 cfm+ with the restrictor and that there would not be a significant impact on power.

Not saying this is gospel, just offering someone else's opinion based on some calculations they did.

Ron Earp · Dec 2, 2004

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
I had a friend run the restrictor size by an engineer who ran some calculations. The conclusion was that the BMW would still flow 1000 cfm+ with the restrictor and that there would not be a significant impact on power.

Not saying this is gospel, just offering someone else's opinion based on some calculations they did.

This is true, that is, the hole can pass that much air - that is the maximum amount of air that will pass through a hole that size. But, Adam needs a lot of other things to flesh the calculation out as to how much air a motor can pull through the hole - cam specs, plenium size, and lots of other specs about the motor. The URL that Adam posted on is here, for interested parties, but please bear in mind that Adam indicates a lot more would be required to really know anything about how much hp the hole will support.

http://www.gt40s.com/ubbthreads/showflat.p.../0/page/0#47668

Ron

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

January FasTrack is up!

Quickshoe

New member

lateapex911

Super Moderator

lateapex911

Super Moderator

Greg Amy

Administrator

ddewhurst

New member

Knestis

Moderator

lateapex911

Super Moderator

mlytle

New member

lateapex911

Super Moderator

Quickshoe

New member

wburstein

New member

Quickshoe

New member

mlytle

New member

wburstein

New member

seckerich

New member

Knestis

Moderator

lateapex911

Super Moderator

JeffYoung

New member

Ron Earp

Administrator