New Weight for E36 325 ITS?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 26 2005, 08:59 PM
It's a hard thing that the ITAC is trying to do and - again - I applaud them for doing so. ....

[snapback]63700[/snapback]​

First Bill, Now Kirk... Why do I feel like I've entered some kind of parallel universe???

(Just kidding guys... We are very glad to be at least trying to serve the best interests of IT as a group... and glad you like the direction we have been going... Thanks for the support! )

 

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 26 2005, 04:59 PM
...my initial reaction is "Have fun, dude!"

[snapback]63700[/snapback]​

Mine was "Buh-bye!"...

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by robits325is@Oct 26 2005, 02:33 PM
I don't think the BMW is an overdog - its the same as any other front running car  - thats why people build them.  Some fast drivers built some fast cars.

Well, the numbers...the cars stats.... that is, tell a different story. Not only is the car out of the envelope compared to the rest of the class, the cars attributes make it race better...as opposed to qualifying better. Thats based on the cars physical properties when it is built to the max. If you think that a car that puts down the kind of numbers we know it's capable of, torque and HP, is the equal to the rest of the field, then we will have to agree to disagree.

What a dumb comment - who wants to drive around by themselves (Do you think Nick had a fun year in 2005?)

Well, perhaps I should have inserted "or"s in there... but yes, many people DO choose overdog cars, or classes with little competition and avoid the classes with deep tight fields. Some do it unconsciously. Lets not kid ourselves there. Look, I don't blame the E36 guys for jumping on the car...it's a clear big dog right from the start....but hey...they've had thier day in the sun, it's now time to even things up a bit.

Seems to be the direction - The trend of ITS BMWs being converted to race BMW CCA JP will continue in greater numbers than we've already seen in 2005.

[snapback]63671[/snapback]​

Too bad...ITS will lose contenders that can win if prepped and driven well. Is the competition deeper there?

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 26 2005, 05:14 PM
First Bill, Now Kirk...  Why do I feel like I've entered some kind of parallel universe???     

(Just kidding guys...  We are very glad to be at least trying to serve the best interests of IT as a group...  and glad you like the direction we have been going...  Thanks for the support!    )

[snapback]63701[/snapback]​

I just commented the other day, to a friend, that exact sentiment. IF Kirk AND Bill are pleased with the direction, then things are pretty OK.

Both are bottom line guys who have had their disappointments with the SCCA in the past.

Thanks guys.

(Bill even adopted a new avatar after I jokingly commented that his earlier approval was like pigs flying!)

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by vodomagoo@Oct 26 2005, 03:31 PM
But why spend the money on it if its just gonna keep getting restrictions added to it when ever it does good. I think the reason why bmw engines are ahead of the rest is due to involvement in pro racing and learning alot from that, I know if i do build one I wont be spending the money on the motec but still wana be somewhat competitive.

[snapback]63680[/snapback]​

Italics mine....

NO...it isn't getting weight because it is doing well....it will get whatever it gets because the process shows that this car, as it is classed, is an outlier. It is ahead of the class target.

Why is it ahead?? A lot of reasons, but a main one is the fact that, for whatever reason, BMW chose to list the stock HP a bit low. Or that the engine is capable of huge gains when prepped. The bottom line is that the car was classed improperly, and it needs to be reeled in for the good of the class.

But not as a penalty.

Your post says two things about your goal...you want a shot at winning, but you don't want to go all out...you just want to be somewhat competitive. Well, either one is fine, but your results will vary if your choose the latter goal, dependent on who shows up in total prep cars.

 

[JeffYoung]

Jake, BMWCCA racing is in my view ...interesting. They have a 13/13 rule, which has some merit but also would not work in IT. It takes a bit of the edge off the racing though in my view.

More importantly, they have a gazillion classes. At VIR, they may get 40 cars for a race, but they have 10 classes or so. JP is pretty popular, but only 3-4 JP cars usually show up (typically ITS cars).

I run the TR8 in vintage on occasion for a change of pace, and I suspect that is what most ITS/JP crossovers do.

But if you want real, hard, season long (BMWCCA schedule is a bit light) competition, SCCA it is.

I really hope these guys don't take their BMWs to CCA exclusively. I like having them with us.

Hey -- JP guys, what is the race weight for a JP BMW E36 325?

 

[robits325is]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Oct 26 2005, 06:04 PM
Hey -- JP guys, what is the race weight for a JP BMW E36 325?

[snapback]63708[/snapback]​

2,900 without a restrictor

2,850 in ITS trim without a restrictor

 

[BMWE46ITS]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Oct 26 2005, 04:41 PM-->

Nope.  Been there, done that.  Went to Speedsource before the 2004 ARRC...why?  You have to have the best of the best to run at the ARRC.

[snapback]63695[/snapback]​

[/b]

So Speedsource builds all the motors for the 04 car?

There not a lighter wheel combo out on the market??

You guys running motec??

What about your the shock combo?

It looked to me you found alot of time over the winter .7 sec at NHIS and about .5 sec at Lime Rock, and I'm sure he could have gone faster with some BMW competition. I was really impressed with that NHIS time wow that's flyin great job Nick-

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 04:41 PM
Faster at some tracks, not as fast as others.

[snapback]63695[/snapback]​

Really!! where was the 04 car slower? Pocono ?? Draft??

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 04:41 PM
Just because the results showed close racing doesn't erase the fact that you guys could do it with less than 'optimal' power.

[snapback]63695[/snapback]​

No we didn't have Motec in our cars in 04 but they were built to the hill with alot of dyno time and suspension development. I'll put the my cars handling against any BMW in the Country ( thanks Scott ) Maybe we were giving up 10 HP to the guys down south, but we had just enough power to win the championship.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Oct 26 2005, 06:35 PM
So Speedsource builds all the motors for the 04 car?

There not a lighter wheel combo out on the market?? 

You guys running motec??

What about your the shock combo?

It looked to me you found alot of time over the winter .7 sec at NHIS and about .5 sec at Lime Rock, and I'm sure he could have gone faster with some BMW competition. I was really impressed with that NHIS time wow that's flyin great job Nick-

Really!! where was the 04 car slower? Pocono ?? Draft??
No we didn't have Motec in our cars in 04 but they were built to the hill with alot of dyno time and suspension development.  I'll put the my cars handling against any BMW in the Country ( thanks Scott ) Maybe we were giving up 10 HP to the guys down south, but we had just enough power to win the championship.

[snapback]63713[/snapback]​

Speedsource does the initial builds and we do the refreshening.

We are running the Fuel Management system that makes the most power for us...and we have had a custom MoTec on the car.

What about the shock combo?

So...you MAY be giving up 10hp...lets say you are. If Nick's RX-7 was leaving 10hp on the table, it wouldn't have been in the same ballpark.

What gives BMW guys without fully developed stuff the right to have the fastest cars? What gives BMW guys WITH the fully developed stuff the right to run over everyone else? It's about leveling the playing field - taking away an ufair advantage. Only BMW guys are complaining...and I believe it to be self-serving and short-sighted. Show me a guy who thinks the E36 325 isn't light that has no dog in the hunt.

If the E36 were classed today, we would use a 25% multiplier over stock hp to estimate power in IT form. This is a common number, some (like a rotary or some HondAcuras) make more and we use 30% or even 35%. Some make less so we use 20%. It's imperfect, but based on actual evidence. 25% is EASILY backed up by dyno sheets and crank hp numbers on the 325 - and frankly is a little conservative.

You run it through the rest of the process, like everything else we have over the past 2 years, and it needs to weigh 3100ish to fit into ITS. I can't stress enough that this is WITHOUT a RP. I hate RP's. I would hope to use them only in extreme cases where weight is too much to manage.

I don't see where the disconnect is. Really.

 

[Ron Earp]

J prepared.

Do people that race BMW CCA really convert back to SCCA ITS specs when they jump? Really? I remember reading in an eariler BMW CCA report about a couple of SE BMW CCA racers who went to race SCCA ITA at VIR for the first time this year and did well. But, J Prepared rules have some important differences:

*Throttle bodies, air horns, and intake plenums are free

*AFMs can be upgraded in size with another BMW AFM

*Camshaft lift and duration may be changed from stock. Cam gears and valve springs are free

*Motor and transmission mounts may be changed for strength

*Rotors are free

These are some damn big changes if you ask me! If I had some of these items on the we could turn Jeff's TR8 into an overdog and you'll be declassing that thing in 2006. Rotors and cam would do it for us!

Anyhow, so J Preppared BMW folks really swap out cams before an ITS race?

Ron

 

[Bill Miller]

I agree, I wish we didn’t have all this restrictor plate BS and we could have run our car another year.

Jeff,

Do I read that right? You guys stayed home because of the restirctor plate?


As far as this JP vs ITS issue, could some of the BMW guys tell me how much more HP a top JP motor will make, over a top ITS motor.

And damn, both Jake AND Darin saying nice things about me, in the SAME THREAD. Where the hell am I???

 

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 27 2005, 12:33 AM
Jeff,

Do I read that right?  You guys stayed home because of the restirctor plate?
As far as this JP vs ITS issue, could some of the BMW guys tell me how much more HP a top JP motor will make, over a top ITS motor.

[snapback]63730[/snapback]​

20hp or so more in jp trim, at the rear wheels.

and to an earlier question, no, people don't move from jp to its. you would have to change (downgrade) too many items..cams, injectors, light flywheel, brakes, wheels, rear wing, front splitter, and more. some of us its cars do race our cars as is with the jp cars though, at a huge disadvantage.

 

[lateapex911]

I saw that too....

Logic would deduce that they took a built motor of known HP, and retested it with the plate, and attempted mods to reduce the plates effect.

So, the question is, how much power did the plate cut? So much that the decision was made to drop the E36s, and get two E46s??

 

[mlytle]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Oct 26 2005, 10:04 PM
Jake, BMWCCA racing is in my view ...interesting.  They have a 13/13 rule, which has some merit but also would not work in IT.  It takes a bit of the edge off the racing though in my view.

More importantly, they have a gazillion classes. At VIR, they may get 40 cars for a race, but they have 10 classes or so. JP is pretty popular, but only 3-4 JP cars usually show up (typically ITS cars).

I run the TR8 in vintage on occasion for a change of pace, and I suspect that is what most ITS/JP crossovers do.

But if you want real, hard, season long (BMWCCA schedule is a bit light) competition, SCCA it is.

I really hope these guys don't take their BMWs to CCA exclusively. I like having them with us. 

Hey -- JP guys, what is the race weight for a JP BMW E36 325?

[snapback]63708[/snapback]​

you must not have been to any recent bmwcca races at vir jeff. 80-100 car fields. 15-20 jp cars.

yes, i do bmwcca races as a fun change from scca. i am one of those its/jp crossovers. so far, more competition in scca, and its cars are just plain dog slow compared to a full tilt jp car. (see my other post listing what jp cars can do that its can't)

but, if scca keeps f'ing with the bmw in its, it will be more fun to change my car to jp rules and go race somewhere else...a lot faster. the competition in bmwcca has gotten much better since the jp fields have been growing like crazy. once the move to jp has been done with a car, it ain't worth undoing the mods to come back to scca with a slower car.

and no this has nothing to do with its weight...just general market factors for its. several sanctioning bodies are competing for the same racers.

 

[robits325is]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 26 2005, 07:17 PM
What gives BMW guys without fully developed stuff the right to have the fastest cars?  What gives BMW guys WITH the fully developed stuff the right to run over everyone else?  It's about leveling the playing field - taking away an ufair advantage.  Only BMW guys are complaining...and I believe it to be self-serving and short-sighted.  Show me a guy who thinks the E36 325 isn't light that has no dog in the hunt.

If the E36 were classed today, we would use a 25% multiplier over stock hp to estimate power in IT form.  This is a common number, some (like a rotary or some HondAcuras) make more and we use 30% or even 35%.  Some make less so we use 20%.  It's imperfect, but based on actual evidence.  25% is EASILY backed up by dyno sheets and crank hp numbers on the 325 - and frankly is a little conservative.

[snapback]63715[/snapback]​

The problem isn't with the top BMWs (or any other make) being reeled in. The problem is with everyone else that is affected by these broad scale adjustments. Not every BMW is a 100% build - but a majority of its competitors arn't even close to 100% builds either. There are lots of variables that make a difference; car prep, track layout, weather conditions and most importantly driver experience. Not every BMW that touches the track wins - there are plenty of mid pack and back BMWs.

BMW drivers are the only ones complaining because BMW drivers are the only group that has been affected. If the goal is to create class parity then the top 2 or 3 makes in each class should receive adjustments. The December Fasttrack didnt have any mention of the new proposal and nobody has mentioned any specifics on what is being presented. Why is it such a secret?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by robits325is@Oct 26 2005, 09:47 PM
The problem isn't with the top BMWs (or any other make) being reeled in.  The problem is with everyone else that is affected by these broad scale adjustments.   Not every BMW is a 100% build - but a majority of its competitors arn't even close to 100% builds either.   There are lots of variables that make a difference; car prep, track layout, weather conditions and most importantly driver experience.  Not every BMW that touches the track wins - there are plenty of mid pack and back BMWs.  

BMW drivers are the only ones complaining because BMW drivers are the only group that has been affected.   If the goal is to create class parity then the top 2 or 3 makes in each class should receive adjustments.   The December Fasttrack didnt have any mention of the new proposal and nobody has mentioned any specifics on what is being presented.  Why is it such a secret?

[snapback]63745[/snapback]​

Rob,

You have to class cars based on their potential. You have to class them based on a 100% effort. I don't believe we have to get into the reasoning for this...it's obvious.

BMW drivers feel like they are being 'attacked' when in reality they are not. They are proud owners of a car that DOESN'T fit the class. Of the top 4 makes in ITS, only one doesn't fit. And that issue is supported by data, both on the track and off.

I can't say it any clearer. Any non ITAC/BMW owner care to weigh in?

On the "proposal"...it isn't a secret, we have mentioned it here many times with our goals. It just hasn't been run up the CRB/BoD flagpole as of yet. It's on the next meeting agenda. Oh ya, the BMW IS NOT on it for a change. We feel it is in the best interest of everyone if we have a complete year of data with the RP in place before we recommend making any changes. Kinda turns the black helicoptor a differnt color, huh?

AB

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by mlytle@Oct 26 2005, 09:35 PM

but, if scca keeps f'ing with the bmw in its, .............

........and no this has nothing to do with its weight...just general market factors for its.  several sanctioning bodies are competing for the same racers.

[snapback]63742[/snapback]​

Clearly I must be missing the logic here, as it seems that it DOES have to do with it's (f'ed with) weight...

 

[robits325is]

Andy,

We are not accusing you personally for what has happened - I don't care what color your helicopter is. We all appreciate what you and the ITAC are trying to do. We know that you have had a problem with the Horsepower and the BMW since we first started racing in 2002. We arn't against leveling the playing field but if there are adjustments in ITS and the RX-7 is not on the list then we will be forced to release Stewart from his holding cell in Jeffs basement.

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by mlytle@Oct 26 2005, 09:24 PM
20hp or so more in jp trim, at the rear wheels.

and to an earlier question, no, people don't move from jp to its. you would have to change (downgrade) too many items..cams, injectors, light flywheel, brakes, wheels, rear wing, front splitter, and more.  some of us its cars do race our cars as is with the jp cars though, at a huge disadvantage.

[snapback]63739[/snapback]​

So that's what, somewhere in the 235-240 WHP range? And the JP car only weighs 50# more (and you get to do all that other cool stuff to the JP car). I would expect the ITS cars to get their lunch eaten by the JP cars. What's really funny, is that I seem to recall a request, a few months back, to allow cars prepped to BMWCCA rules, to run in IT, as is.

And for only a 50# weight penalty, you get to put all those neat go-fast goodies on the car, and run JP. Why would anybody build these as ITS cars?

And you can't really level the playing field with rules (w/ the possible exception of spec classes). The goal here, is to spec the cars w/in a defined performance envelope. The rest is really up to the ability of the driver to prep/drive the car. I can't count how many times and ways that the ITAC guys here have said, the E36 325, at it's current weight, does not fit that performance envelope. The fact that less than 10/10ths cars (and drivers) can do so well w/ these cars, only reinforces the fact that the car doesn't fit the performance envelope for ITS.

But, from what Andy has said, sounds like you guys get another year before anything is going to happen.

 

[Greg Amy]

Any non ITAC/BMW owner care to weigh in?

Didn't really want to, as you guys are/were covering it quite well, until I read...

Originally posted by robits325is@Oct 26 2005, 10:30 PM
...if there are adjustments in ITS and the RX-7 is not on the list then we will be forced to release Stewart from his holding cell in Jeffs basement.

[snapback]63755[/snapback]​

HELLO!! McFly?!?!?

Dude, are you DENSE??? The BMW enjoys a SIGNIFICANT performance advantage in NUMEROUS ways, horsepower-to-weight being the obvious one! I got a real giggle about the "sports car versus family sedan" comment; dude, do you REALLY think the 'rest of the world' thinks you're driving a Toyota Camry???

So, the BMW enjoys this significant advantage, is being considered for parity adjustments, and you're asking that the rest of the world get taken down a notch with it? So, it's OK if the BMW gets performance adjustments as long as its performance advantage is maintained? Whaaaa....?

Holy Christ, bud! Do you really think everyone else is that stupid???

You have an AWESOME car, VERY well built, and with any mid-range driver has an high-probabilty chance of winning just about any race. The questions are usually not which car will win, but which BMW will win. THIS IS UNFAIR, THIS IS INEQUITABLE. THIS IS NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. WITH ANY REASONABLE CERTAINTY, THIS WILL BE CHANGED.

Sorry for the rant, man, but some of these comments make me feel like we're talking to a two-year-old...I can understand you're not being happy with losing your dominant position, but if you REALLY think you're getting shat on, you want to thorwo a tantrum, and you want to move over to BMWCCA where you think the playing field is more level, that's fine and good, we'll miss you. However, just don't expect folks from this side of the fence to feel any empathy for you.

Argh! Time to go back to MY basement holding cell...