OK, I'm going to try to summarize the 318 weight decision from the ITAC's perspective with as few words as possible, lest I give Bill and Kirk any more ammunition than they inevitably will find anyhow...
IT letter 03-409, received sometime in the April-May timeframe, says the following (I'm quoting exactly, grammer and all):
I would like to submit, for consideration, the following items:
1. Correct weight on the BMW 318 (E36 chassis) in ITA. Manufactures listed curb weight is only 2818 lbs and GCR weight is more ( 2850) when most cars receive a 100 to 200 lbs reduction in class.
2...
3...
My response to this was the following:
"Revisit after PCA decision - It does look a little heavy in comparison to the rest of the class"
That was also the general consensus of the ITAC, so the weight was left as is for now...
In June, another letter was received from the same party, IT-03-479:
First... (question about getting cars classed in Production...) Second, I asked you to forward a few requests to the comp board for IT and you replied that a possible "comp adjustment" rules was being considered and nothing would be addressed until that was resolved. My problem is that if "comp adjustments" become reality I don't want my starting point to be too far off. I am building a E36 BMW 318 for ITA and requested the weight be corrected. (corrected, not adjusted) In looking at old SSB rules this car was listed at 2660 lbs and in ITA it is llisted at 2840lbs??? My ownders manual has 2880 listed with full fuel. This IT weight is only 10 lbs less than the 6 cylinder 325 in ITS... The 325 along with all other examples I have found received wieght drops from 100 to close to 300 lbs from their respective SS or OE weights. Why is this car different? I think it is a correction, not a comp adjustment??? Can you shed light on this?
Respectifully submitted,
XXXXX
My response to this was the following:
"These specs to me look a little like "fear of the 4-valve" that the SCCA tends to have when classifying cars... HOWEVER, if the car was classified using the same procedure as the other cars, then I'd have to opt to leave the classification as is until some proven statistics are available to otherwise show that it is uncompetitive. I otherwise don't have enough background with this particular car to make an honest assessment"
Some general comments from the ITAC were:
'Seems real high weight'
'May have made an error in the weight. We should research and review'
'Revisit after PCAs'
'Request VTS... weight does appear high...'
Etc, and so forth...
Generally, the ITAC requested more data, as that submitted was insufficient, and chose to leave weight as is or hold until further information was available...
Finally, in August, letter IT-03-617 stated the following:
Please review my request found in August Fastrack regarding the weight question for 1992-1995 BMW 318 E36 cars in ITA. I was not requesting a "weight adjustment" but a weight correction. According to SCCA's own spec for prior years in SSS the car weighted 2660 in 2001 or 2840 in 2003 with the new SSS 180lb driver weight add. In 2001, when last elibible for SS, the 325 E36 ran at 2910, if you add the 2003 driver weight of 180lb you would get 3090 if the 325 was still legal. The ITCS for the 325 in IT trim is only 2850 or some 240lbs lighter than it's SSS spec would be. Why then would the 318 would weigh exactly the same as it's SSS spec and it is only 10lbs lighter than the 6 cylinder 325... BMW's own specifications for the 2 cars shows some 221 lbs less curb weight between the 318 and 325 (example given based on 1993 specs for 325is@ 3087 and 318is @ 2866 per BMW NA). My understanding of a "weight adjustment" is an adjustment made to increase or decrease the competition potential and sense no body appears to be compaigning this car (318 E36) that is not the issue. I am requesting this isse be reviewed because the original spec line is incorrect. I plan on building this car to compette in ITA next year.
Respectfully Submitted,
XXXXX
To this letter, I responded:
"I need to look more into this. It appears that Mr. XXXX may have a point, but I need further information about the specs of these cars to make an informed decision"
The general ITAC comments were:
'Submit to CB for evaluation'
'SS weights and IT weights do not necessarily correspond'
'Hold for PCAs'
'Another case of "how was this car classed"'
That puts us where we are right now. The ITAC has never received a VTS as far as I know, without which I could only rely on what I found on the internet for information.
From my point of view, you can't make a valid argument about the classfication weight of your car based on the weight it had in SS, or the factory curb weight alone. You also can't expect to use another cars ITS weight to support an argument for a car in ITA, since it would be reasonable to say that if the same two cars were classed together in SSB at one time, the one car that went to ITA would likely have to be heavier to make it fit in the lower class when it's bretheren went to ITS. One needs to look at the whole picture.
The facts I do know are that BMWs have a very advanced and well tuned suspension. This particular car has HUGE vented disk brakes, especially in comparison to the rest of the ITA cars. I don't know what is available as factory options on these cars as far as cams, head assemblies, etc., but there are many models available that may have parts that can interchange, so the factory 138hp (a value that I found reading a test report of a '95 318i convertible,
http://www.carmax.com/dyn/research/Reviews...review=19952186 ) may not truely represent the potential of this car, and is certainly in line with stock hp of many other ITA cars.
So, bottom line is that I believe the car may truely be too heavy as classified, but don't have enough real evidence to make an adjustment. If I had the VTS, then I could use some of my simulation software to do an engine analysis to determine the potential HP available in IT trim, and that would help a great deal, because we all know that BMWs are capaple motors...
Finally, we on the ITAC are not involved in determining classification weights at this point. We can recommend that a weight be reviewed, but since we aren't part of the initial weight determining process, we don't have the insight to how the weights are determined in the first place, so how could we make decisions to adjust them? (You guys aren't the only ones bothered by this fact...)
I would like to see the CB establish a bare minimum classification weight formula that would be used along with other "emperical" evidence to determine these weights. I'd like to see the formula published. I believe that some of this process needs to be left up to the people on the board and that some leeway should exist for them to add to/subtract from the formula weights as they see fit. I believe...
I'm just one, however, and I have stated my desires... From there, it's not up to me.
You now know what I know, and you'll just have to be satisfied with that.
OH, and to answer Kirk's questions about "emperical" data... I have no idea. I only suggested adding that word because I thought it would be a good way to say that the system simply uses a best guess based on past experience. Take that as you will, I really don't care at this point... You guys have a way of making racing more of a hassle than it's worth, and at times I wonder why I even try...
As for the topic at hand... Your comments/suggestions are, of course, welcome...
Good Day...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 06, 2003).]