New Weight for E36 325 ITS?

[BMWE46ITS]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 04:54 PM
While I'm still here at work, I'll add that we have another E36 competitor who wrote in recently and says that his car "has a professionally built Sunbelt motor and has in the low 190s (whp w/ restrictor)"... (IT Letter 05-066)

[snapback]64351[/snapback]​

Darin, all this information is a start but we need to know a lot of other information.

What was the weather and humidity that day?
What gear was the car being run in on this dyno pull?
16 or 15 inch wheels?
45 or 50 series tires?
How accurate is this Dyno?
What brand of Dyno?

Does the ITAC consider this???? All these factors can affect correct #s

 

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Nov 2 2005, 07:00 PM-->

Darin said it above, the ITAC.
[/b]

And who are they? Who appointed them? From what I've read here so far, they come off like a bunch of vigilantes. What's their charter? How do I join? How many BMW drivers are in the ITAC?

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 07:00 PM
As far as "standard IT-prep"...check the ITCS under "Authorized Modifications"...

BTW:  congrats on being within 10% of the number with little-to-no prep.  :119:

I think you might have misunderstood; I'm 10% under the stock numbers at the rear wheel, not 10% under the 225 horsepower number you've mentioned.

What's the plan for when the 924S guys start complaining, or the 1.8L Miata guys get angry? Bring the E36 to 3450 or so?

I don't think there's much in the way of horsepower improvements that aren't in the car. I'm running Conforti software (AFAIK) and not Bimmerworld software. The throttle body water line is still there, as I haven't found a good plug for the heater line. The evap canister and its plumbing are still there, but I can't imagine this costs power.

I had always thought headers weren't legal in ITS. Maybe I should look into that, though I don't think I have an exhaust flow problem.

And my engine wasn't rebuilt; is this 225 horsepower car running a 040-over motor?

After putting a great suspension on the car, all the improvements have come from my development as a driver. I'd hate to have to take a giant step backwards with the extra 200 pounds in the passenger footwell -- assuming I could even find a way to get that much weight in there.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Nov 2 2005, 05:17 PM
Darin, all this information is a start but we need to know a lot of other information.

What was the weather and humidity that day?
What gear was the car being run in on this dyno pull?
16 or 15 inch wheels?
45 or 50 series tires?
How accurate is this Dyno?
What brand of Dyno?   

Does the ITAC consider this???? All these factors can affect correct #s

[snapback]64360[/snapback]​

Jeff,

Let's cut through the crap. Have you been ignoring some of the other e-mails?

There is a process. For an engine of this design, we use a 25% increase over stock crank hp to estimate crank hp in IT-prep. We use that number, combine it with a target class performance factor, then add for intangibles - should there be any. That is how we set weight. It's been documented here before. Simple stuff.

Now, as far as the dyno sheets go, they are used as SUPPORTING information, not the be-all, end-all. In this case, every piece of data we have received from BMW owners (presumably wanting to refute claims on boards of 225+ whp) SUPPORTS the 25% factor - IN EVERY CASE. This is great info, it validates our proccess and historical info, which one would think is good for the members.

The issue at hand is that at those power levels, the car is way underweight. All we want to do is get it through the process so it can be on the same playing field as the reast of the cars in the class. It is not unique in this regard. It may be the only car in ITS that sticks out, but there are some in ITA that do as well.

It's about repeatablility, consistancy and fairness.

What does the nit-picking on tire-aspect ratio prove?

Pllllease...some non-BMW, non-ITAC members weigh in here. Are we off base? Are we 'targeting' a car unfairly? The negatives all come from people protecting their own turf, but everyone else is quiet.

Help us help you.

AB

 

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by benspeed@Nov 2 2005, 05:46 PM
Mike - this site is really the best resource for all things related to IT racing. It's kept pretty current IMHO.

I can't agree. There's no race results, despite a couple of links to them. The pages mention "results from 2002". The lap records page doesn't look current; there's plenty of missing data, and a preponderance of east-coast tracks. No data from Portland at all? Pacific Raceways isn't even listed? Broken links abound.

The point is that it's hard for me to take sersiously what's posted here. Why would I assume anyone here is more authorotative than any other loudmouth on some racing forum?

Originally posted by benspeed+Nov 2 2005, 05:46 PM-->

These guys are seeking fairness in classification. [/b]

Which is fine. But I think they're headed for overcompenstation. And the process is far too opaque for my linking.

<!--QuoteBegin-benspeed@Nov 2 2005, 05:46 PM
My concern is that many E36 drivers are getting chased off because of the restrictions placed on the car. I like racing with a bunch of good cars, but not with a total overdog. The performance potential of the E36 IMHO is significantly higher than that of the other cars in the class and the advisory committee is taking measures to create a methodology to properly class cars taking into account the performance tier of each vehicle. This is based on guys who are building very high quality cars. Mike - guys in the east and the south will drop $10K on a motor as part of winning a championship. But even other E36 front runners have been competitive with junkyard engines and restrictor plates.

Indeed, I'm all for fun racing. If I was walking away from everyone else in my club, then I wouldn't have these questions -- I'd shut up and hope nobody noticed for another season. As it stands, I can barely keep up with the 240Zs, and the Integras are wildly faster at the shorter tracks. And in the rain? P'shaw!

The rules change with little visible discussion, and no transparancy. Where's all this "data" and "math" that's so obvious? If there's a committee dedicated to making the decision, I'd expect them to solicit comment publicly, provide reports, host talks, and so on. Maybe I've missed it -- but where is all that? It's certainly not on these forums, in this rant-fest, is it?

Dropping ten grand on a motor isn't "fun racing" in this regional class, for club racing. And that's why I think some over-prepared cars are upsetting the balance in certain regions, and an attempt to solve that problem nationally is ill-advised.

I thought it was absurd to introduce competition balancing to ITS in the first place; there are other balanced classes where its appropriate -- if someone feels they're not getting a fair shake, they should investigate those classes.

 

[Bill Miller]

I'm about ten percent shy of that "core number" at the wheels

Mike, that's your quote, in response to what Andy state was the core range of values, for E36 325 WHP.

I had always thought headers weren't legal in ITS. Maybe I should look into that, though I don't think I have an exhaust flow problem.

I hate to sound harsh, but that comment makes it sound like you really have no idea what you're doing. Headers have been legal in IT (all classes) for as long as I can remember. You would probably be well served by a closer reading of the ITCS.

As far as the restrictor on the E36 being put out for member input, it didn't need to be. With the passage of the PCA clause, the CRB was given the power to make adjustments to IT cars. There is no need to put it out for member input, and in fact, probably should not. There should be as little subjective influence on the spec weight of a car as possible.

And Kirk was right, ARRA was a typo for ARRC.

 

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 09:47 PM
There is a process.  For an engine of this design, we use a 25% increase over stock crank hp to estimate crank hp in IT-prep.  We use that number, combine it with a target class performance factor, then add for intangibles - should there be any.  That is how we set weight.  It's been documented here before.  Simple stuff.

Andy, please try not to sound so condescending. While it might be simple, there's plenty of people around -- like me -- who don't know it already.

What's the "class performance factor"? Don't you think 25% is generous? Who decides what "intangibles" are added, and how much? Documented where?

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Nov 2 2005, 09:47 PM-->

Now, as far as the dyno sheets go, they are used as SUPPORTING information, not the be-all, end-all.  In this case, every piece of data we have received from BMW owners (presumably wanting to refute claims on boards of 225+ whp) SUPPORTS the 25% factor - IN EVERY CASE.  This is great info, it validates our proccess and historical info, which one would think is good for the members.
[/b]

Please let me know where I can send my dyno sheets so that you can use balanced data as your input. I can get my friends together and have them send in sheets, too. It seems very amazing to me that all the cars you've dynoed are running over 230 horspower (189 times 1.25 is 231.25).

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 09:47 PM
Pllllease...some non-BMW, non-ITAC members weigh in here.  Are we off base?  Are we 'targeting' a car unfairly?  The negatives all come from people protecting their own turf, but everyone else is quiet.

Does your business, sell any BMW parts?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 05:40 PM
And who are they? Who appointed them? From what I've read here so far, they come off like a bunch of vigilantes. What's their charter? How do I join? How many BMW drivers are in the ITAC?

I think you might have misunderstood; I'm 10% under the stock numbers at the rear wheel, not 10% under the 225 horsepower number you've mentioned.

What's the plan for when the 924S guys start complaining, or the 1.8L Miata guys get angry? Bring the E36 to 3450 or so?

I don't think there's much in the way of horsepower improvements that aren't in the car. I'm running Conforti software (AFAIK) and not Bimmerworld software. The throttle body water line is still there, as I haven't found a good plug for the heater line. The evap canister and its plumbing are still there, but I can't imagine this costs power.

I had always thought headers weren't legal in ITS. Maybe I should look into that, though I don't think I have an exhaust flow problem.

And my engine wasn't rebuilt; is this 225 horsepower car running a 040-over motor?

After putting a great suspension on the car, all the improvements have come from my development as a driver. I'd hate to have to take a giant step backwards with the extra 200 pounds in the passenger footwell -- assuming I could even find a way to get that much weight in there.

[snapback]64368[/snapback]​

Who are we?

http://scca.com/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=01143...30&x=080|070&~=

So you are running 170whp? (189*.90) With JUST A CHIP??? Congrats again, you are right in the zone of a built RX-7. Throw out the 225whp number. It isn't a factor in what we use for data. Just because someone gave it to use, doesn't mean it is based in fact. Re-read my post above on what numbers we are using...the same process as EVERY OTHER CAR.

This isn't about the MANY complaints we have received already, it's about a PROCESS - one that is applied to everyone. Fairly.

You thought headers were illegal in IT...goodness Mike, you are killing yourself here. How can you complain about a classification, potential changes or a process when you don't have the most basic knowledge of the rules in your own class? I ask that of you will all due respect. Seriously.

Some would argue that the penalty of that 200 pounds would be just enough to equalize an unlevel playing field. If you find that hard to swallow, I am sorry.

AB

 

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Banzai240+Nov 2 2005, 06:22 PM-->

Since you are here in my region (NW and Oregon), you can feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions about what's going on...  send me an e-mail if you are interested and I'll give you the contact info from there...
[/b]

Thanks for the offer, Darin. My contact information is in my profile (or, at least, you're only a couple of clicks away from my contact information once you visit the web site in my profile). Let me know if you find that the email address isn't working.

I'm not sure why you want to take the conversation private, though. I think I have already posted all of the questions I would initially ask you here.

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 06:22 PM
The ITAC estimates the output for the E36 at around 235 to 240hp at the flywheel, or about 195-200 at the wheels...  This is backed up with multiple dyno sheets sent to the CRB by E36 drivers, one that shows 195whp and the other that shows 205 whp (might have been 210... I'll have to go back and look)...  There have been rumors that more is achievable, but there have also been rumors that these are using illegal cams, etc...

I'm a little confused. You mention two dyno sheets -- is that "multiple"? How do I submit my own dyno data?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 05:56 PM
Andy, please try not to sound so condescending.  While it might be simple, there's plenty of people around -- like me -- who don't know it already.

What's the "class performance factor"? Don't you think 25% is generous? Who decides what "intangibles" are added, and how much? Documented where?
Please let me know where I can send my dyno sheets so that you can use balanced data as your input. I can get my friends together and have them send in sheets, too. It seems very amazing to me that all the cars you've dynoed are running over 230 horspower (189 times 1.25 is 231.25).
Does your business,  sell any BMW parts?

[snapback]64376[/snapback]​

Sorry if it comes off that way. It would seem that you haven't read the entire thread and I am in need of repetition...it gets frustrating.

The ITAC votes on these 'intangibles', bounces them around, debates them and applies them. Some of them are (not related to any specific car): Aero, superior brakes, chassis layout, superior transmission ratios, etc...as compared to cars in its class.

Not to sound harsh, but keep your dyno sheets until you have built your motor to the limit of the rules. We have to class cars based on potential, not on what a under - or marginally - or even 'close to the max' motors would put out.

My business sells no BMW parts, but it sounds like you needs some...

Mike, lets not clog up the forum bickering. I respectfully suggest you do some more learning before more debate.

AB

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 10:01 PM
I'm not sure why you want to take the conversation private, though. I think I have already posted  all of the questions I would initially ask you here.

Please don't misinterpret... I only offered because I can get the point across better in person than in type... I have also said everything I would say in person here... There is nothing to hide. I think we've pretty much laid it out on the line here... I DO get tired of typing from time to time...

I'm a little confused. You mention two dyno sheets -- is that "multiple"? How do I submit my own dyno data?

[snapback]64379[/snapback]​

If you'd like to submit your own dyno data, you are welcome to... Send it to Jeremy or John at SCCA Tech and to the CRB... [email protected] is the e-mail I believe. We would gladly accept another data point. Be sure, however, to qualify it by giving a detailed description of the level of prep, engine builder, etc., so we have a context to go by... Fully prepped means just that...

 

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Nov 2 2005, 09:59 PM-->

Who are we? 

http://scca.com/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=01143...30&x=080|070&~=
[/b]

Thanks for the link, that's a start. Where do I find the rest of the information?

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 09:59 PM
So you are running 170whp?  (189*.90)  With JUST A CHIP???

Nope. A free-flow exhaust without a cat. No headers, tho. Kormann LSD. And a Conforti intake kit. No A/C, power steering pump has a reduced pulley, and I think the water pump has one too. No engine fan.

A rounding error less than 170, yep. I'd have to go grab the sheets, but I think I'm exactly at 168 or so.

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 09:59 PM
Throw out the 225whp number.  It isn't a factor in what we use for data.  Just because someone gave it to use, doesn't mean it is based in fact.  Re-read my post above on what numbers we are using...the same process as EVERY OTHER CAR.

What's with the ALL CAPS, Andy? I know this issue has a long history, particularly on this flame board, but I've respectfully come with my honest questions and I've stated them plainly. I expect to be treated like a gentleman in return -- particularly by someone in your position.

The same process, modulo all the "intangibles" and "performance factor". Your other post doesn't say these are fixed, and doesn't explain how they're determined or derived.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 09:59 PM
You thought headers were illegal in IT...goodness Mike, you are killing yourself here.  How can you complain about a classification, potential changes or a process when you don't have the most basic knowledge of the rules in your own class?  I ask that of you will all due respect.  Seriously.

Well, it's pretty simple, Andy. Perhaps you don't understand it because you're too far out of touch with the people you're supposed to be helping and leading. With all due respect, seriously.

Headers are expensive. I'm a club racer; if I win all the races I go to, I get a pile of plaques and a trophy. I've only been racing for four or five years, and I'm easing into it. Between the expense and the lack of a perceived need, I never looked into 'em.

Where I'm racing, I'm quite happy. The last five or six races this year, all the ITS cars (except for people who broke, or had the wrong tyres, or whatever) had everyone posting best laps within a second of eachother.

So between the lack of a perceived need and a measured, learn-as-I-go approach, I haven't looked into every corner of the rule book. What you're certain is "typical" is actually "not yet, if ever" for me. And that goes back to my idea that the proposed adjustments are overreaction.

All these power numbers are from cars that are incredibly well-prepped. Why not make racing affordable and approachable for everyone in the class? If a car doesn't have certain enhancements, why wouldn't it get some weight back?

Do you know how to spot the guys who know all the intricacies of the rule book at the track? Besides the ones who are a Steward, anyway? They're the ones who are all excited about every little problem, and not having any fun any more.

Maybe I can overcome the weight penalty with a set of headers -- I guess I'll have to wait until January when the announcement is made to know, huh? It would be great if adding the headers overcame the penalty exactly, so I can continue to have fun racing with my friends.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 09:59 PM
Some would argue that the penalty of that 200 pounds would be just enough to equalize an unlevel playing field.  If you find that hard to swallow, I am sorry.

Is this really what you mean to say? Because it's a quite telling response: you're stating one side of the argument, taking it as your position and the position of your committee, and then saying that everyone else should suck it up without question. That's not the kind of balanced, sensible explanation I would expect in a public forum from someone on a national advisory board to the Sports Car Club of America. That's not what working on a committee is about.

 

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Banzai240+Nov 2 2005, 10:24 PM-->

Please don't misinterpret... I only offered because I can get the point across better in person than in type...  I have also said everything I would say in person here...  There is nothing to hide.  I think we've pretty much laid it out on the line here...  I DO get tired of typing from time to time... 
[/b]

Then maybe you should try to get in touch with me, as a majority of my questions are going unanswered.

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 10:24 PM
If you'd like to submit your own dyno data, PLEASE DO!! Send it to Jeremy or John  at SCCA Tech and to the CRB...  [email protected] is the e-mail I believe.  We would gladly accept another data point.  Be sure, however, to qualify it by giving a detailed description of the level of prep, engine builder, etc., so we have a context to go by...

Thanks for the contact info. I'll see if I can get to it this weekend.

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 10:27 PM
That's not the kind of balanced, sensible explanation I would expect in a public forum from someone on a national advisory board to the Sports Car Club of America. That's not what working on a committee is about.

[snapback]64385[/snapback]​

Mike,

You need to step back and read EVERYTHING here on this topic... You are very obviously missing some important information that has already been discussed at length in various threads on this topic...

This isn't about the BMW... It's about all of IT... we've explained this, laid it out, etc., for many, many months... there is really only a select group who really disagree with what we are trying to do...

Please go read all the info here before you bury yourself further in this muck...

The bottom line concerning your position above is this... we can NOT classify cars based on someones "budget"... we have to consider what a fully developed example is capable of... Not to sound harsh, but yours is NOT that example, base on your description above...

 

[Ron Earp]

Mike, you aren't running a header on your car and you don't think you have a flow problem? You are wanting to be competitive in ITS, right? You'll have to do that and a lot more to have a competitive BMW 325 in ITS, that is certain.

I'm new at this too, but you aren't anywhere near the development necessary to run upfront in an ITS BMW so I'm not sure you should be worried too much at the moment about rwhp numbers and weight of the top cars. Right now with wheel hp 10% shy of the stock hp levels (I think I read that in your post) you are going to be hard pressed to be back pack among BMWs and mid-pack with the rest of the ITS field.

R

 

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 10:11 PM
Sorry if it comes off that way.  It would seem that you haven't read the entire thread and I am in need of repetition...it gets frustrating.

Nope, I've read it. There's a lot of proof by desk pounding, which I don't take well to. Ranting that something is "obvious" or "shouldn't need to be repeated" doesn't really prove anything. If you think there's something I've missed that's important, feel free to point me to the specific post. In this forum, each one is numbered and has a link that you can copy into a message.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Nov 2 2005, 10:11 PM-->

The ITAC votes on these 'intangibles', bounces them around, debates them and applies them.  Some of them are (not related to any specific car):  Aero, superior brakes, chassis layout, superior transmission ratios, etc...as compared to cars in its class.
[/b]

And how public is that process? Where are your meeting minutes published?

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 10:11 PM
My business sells no BMW parts, but it sounds like you needs some...

What prevents someone on the committee, from poisoning the committee with a personal agenda?

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 10:11 PM
I respectfully suggest you do some more learning before more debate.

I'm here to learn, Andy. I'm asking lots of questions, and have been very careful to sound level headed. If you're not able to answer them, can you refer me to one of your colleagues who can?

 

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 2 2005, 10:34 PM
Mike, you aren't running a header on your car and you don't think you have a flow problem? You are wanting to be competitive in ITS, right? You'll have to do that and a lot more to have a competitive BMW 325 in ITS, that is certain. 

Is it? I finished second in class overall the last two years in a row. I set the lap record at Spokane, only to have it taken away by someone who bettered me by a few thousandths (literally!) later that afternoon.

Just the same, it's entirely possible what you're saying is true. Maybe if one of the more-prepped back east cars came out here, I'd get a whoopin'. I don't think anyone in the paddock would think the guy was running a well-prepared car -- they'd probably just accuse him of cheating.

Within a region, everyone's used to the region and has no way to compare their competitiveness to another region except to go there and race. I don't think that happens much, though it might back east since everything is so close together.

Around here, I run at the front. If I have a good day, I'll win. If I make a mistake, someone will eat my lunch. It's great fun. Very simply, I'm afraid it won't be fun anymore if I have to add 150 or 200 pounds to the car.

I don't feel like a victim because the rules are changing; I feel like a victim because I don't have any insight into how they're changed or feel like I have a say in changing them.

And that's why I wonder if nationally changing the rules is the right solution. If the weight is added, I must run it as well. My competitors who aren't in E36es will not get the weight, and I'll be left to throw money at a problem.

By the way, it just dawned on me about the headers: I run a secondary local production-based class. I thought this class (despite being production) did allow headers, and that ITS didn't. It turns out it's the other way 'round.

 

[dickita15]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 06:27 PM
I know this issue has a long history, particularly on this flame board, but I've respectfully come with my honest questions and I've stated them plainly. I expect to be treated like a gentleman in return -- particularly by someone in your position.

[snapback]64385[/snapback]​

respectfully with honest questions. I think not. Mike I am sorry but you have come off as a hot head with little knowledge of the facts. sorry guy but you need to take a step back a see a liitle more of the picture. By the way Darin nicely offered to talk to you personelly and you insist he call you. get over yourself.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 03:55 PM
Is it? I finished second in class overall the last two years in a row. I set the lap record at Spokane, only to have it taken away by someone who bettered me by a few thousandths (literally!) later that afternoon.

Just the same, it's entirely possible what you're saying is true. Maybe if one of the more-prepped back east cars came out here, I'd get a whoopin'. I don't think anyone in the paddock would think the guy was running a well-prepared car -- they'd probably just accuse him of cheating.

Within a region, everyone's used to the region and has no way to compare their competitiveness to another region except to go there and race. I don't think that happens much, though it might back east since everything is so close together.

Around here, I run at the front. If I have a good day, I'll win. If I make a mistake, someone will eat my lunch. It's great fun. Very simply, I'm afraid it won't be fun anymore if I have to add 150 or 200 pounds to the car.

I don't feel like a victim because the rules are changing; I feel like a victim because I don't have any insight into how they're changed or feel like I have a say in changing them.

And that's why I wonder if nationally changing the rules is the right solution. If the weight is added, I must run it as well. My competitors who aren't in E36es will not get the weight, and I'll be left to throw money at a problem.

By the way, it just dawned on me about the headers: I run a secondary local production-based class. I thought this class (despite being production) did allow headers, and that ITS didn't. It turns out it's the other way 'round.

[snapback]64393[/snapback]​

Mike If I recall correctly (which I do) you run ITS in the ICSCC race club. I don't believe your rule book provides a copy of the SCCA rules which your class runs under. I would recommend a copy of the GCR as a way to at least know what's legal and not legal in ITS. The fact that your car is running up front and finished well in the championship agaist some very well prepared and driven Z cars should tell you that if you maxied out your prep to the book you would be way faster than the cars in your class. The fact that you don't even have a header and you are running with some very fast 240z's makes me believe that writing a big check in the tech shed maybe in order here. Please before you scream how badly your getting boned anymore spend a little time and get to know the rules for the class you are running a little better. If your numbers are correct I promise I could get more out of your car.

Joe

P.S. Who's Dyno did you run the car on and who was the engine builder?

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 10:55 PM
Just the same, it's entirely possible what you're saying is true. Maybe if one of the more-prepped back east cars came out here, I'd get a whoopin'. I don't think anyone in the paddock would think the guy was running a well-prepared car -- they'd probably just accuse him of cheating.

Now, both might be true. You might get a whoopin, and I think that might be true based on the wheel hp some of the tope flight bmws make, and I bet your boys would tear that joker down - and I'm not sure what would happen there. I assume nothing, but them fellows at CMP don't keep bringing stock BMW cylinder heads and cams to tech for nothing!

Ron

 

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan+Nov 2 2005, 11:22 PM-->

I would recommend a copy of the GCR as a way to at least know what's legal and not legal in ITS.[/b]

Hi, Joe!

Thanks for the advice. While I've bought the GCR books in the past, I have found it far more convenient (and cheaper!) to just download the rules from the SCCA website.

<!--QuoteBegin-Joe Harlan@Nov 2 2005, 11:22 PM
Please before you scream how badly your getting boned

I've not "screamed about getting boned" by any stretch. Indeed, before I do, I'm trying to figure out how these rule changes happen, and what justification there is for them. What's being proposed doesn't seem appropriate to me, sure; but before I raise a stink about it, I'm making an effort to figure out how those numbers come about. I'm not beyond being convinced that they're they right thing to do.

I'd very much like to see the data that's going into this process, as well as good documentation for the process itself. I've asked for that information here.

Otherwise, no matter what the committee does, it will strike all the drivers involved as something that was just thrown over the wall. After all, if we can come to understand how the process works, it'll be a lot easier to accept that the process is working and that the recommendation of the committee is well-reasoned.

Wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 2 2005, 11:22 PM
P.S. Who's Dyno did you run the car on and who was the engine builder?

I ran the car up at the dyno shop in Kirkland, in the Totem Lake area. And I just can't think of the name right now. Is it Carb Connection?

The engine was built by BMW. Seriously; it's a junk yard motor. Strictly BMW went through the heads (which they send to a machine shop, also in Kirkland). But that's it.