Problems with new restrictor for E36 BMW 325
- Thread starter its325
- Start date
Ron Earp
Administrator
What cars are being considered from S to R other than the 325i? Maybe the Supra in S, but there are none of those around in comparison to 325 numbers. You guys going to put the TR8 in R?
Seems like the logical thing to do would be to use the classification process in place, class the cars properly, and avoid another "rule" in IT. DC adds a needless layer of complication to the world of IT. Not everyone will be happy where a car ends up going. Period. But trying to placate those with moved cars with a new procedure for IT doesn't seem like such a good idea.
R
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
What cars are being considered from S to R other than the 325i? Maybe the Supra in S, but there are none of those around in comparison to 325 numbers. You guys going to put the TR8 in R?
R [/b]
The 3 Preludes.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
But, think of it this way. You have spent a couple thousand hitting a weight target and building a rollcage to do so. Now...you have to lose weight, and it's in the cage. Odds are you don't just saw members out, as they are likely important. Some cars could need extensive work. Plus wheels, gears, and so on. How would you like it if you were faced with having to do that over the (short) winter?? I know I wouldn't.
DC is a good alternative to give our friends an option. If it's written well, it will be very limited in it's scope. Less than 1% of the listed cars will be affected, I bet.
Bill Miller
New member
Jake,
Help me out w/ why they would have to buy gears now. Also, no need to buy new wheels (unlike the folks that went from ITA to IT
.
Oh, and maybe it's time to trot out the 'no guarnatee' clause again!
Help me out w/ why they would have to buy gears now. Also, no need to buy new wheels (unlike the folks that went from ITA to IT
.Oh, and maybe it's time to trot out the 'no guarnatee' clause again!
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Well, ars that are suddenly weighing less, and on wider tires, (such as the cars in S getting moved to R) will be entering straights faster, and accelerating faster down the straights, and, presuming they were geared properly before, will run out of gear now. Of course. that will affect some more than others.
Yes, you're right...those moved don't "Need" to get the proper wheels for the class or remove weight, ...but...changing classes on guys who are invested and competitive, and expecting them to be fine with having to choose between being uncompetitive or rebuilding their cars is a bit much.
yea, there's no guarantee, but we said a long time ago that we'd try really hard to not need to use that if at all possible.
Yes, you're right...those moved don't "Need" to get the proper wheels for the class or remove weight, ...but...changing classes on guys who are invested and competitive, and expecting them to be fine with having to choose between being uncompetitive or rebuilding their cars is a bit much.
yea, there's no guarantee, but we said a long time ago that we'd try really hard to not need to use that if at all possible.
Bill Miller
New member
Jake,
Do you actually have data that show that the ex-ITS cars will actually be faster on wider tires? I know of cases where wider tires have actually slowed cars down. As far as your gearing argument, I'll submit that those 'invested' drivers already have different gears for different tracks. I think it's something that everyone, in all classes is up against. Do you think that the gear you run in your car at LRP would work at Road America?
And from your comment on the 'no guarantee' clause, is it safe to say that you favor writing special-case rules that impact a limited number of cars (very limited?) rather than invoking existing policy?
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Bill, we can debate the technicalities all day long. I showed you some scenarios that I think are likely. You differ. Fine. I think the club owes it to it's members to try and look at all options. Everybody can't have it entirely "their way" but, on the other hand, poor classing has cost the club members many times in the past, and needlessly so.
Your's is a "Tough s#!t " policy, it appears....
I'm looking at options as I don't see any upside to that in this case.
As far as existing policy goes, we don't HAVE a policy on what to do with cars in existing classes being moved up to brand new classes.
Your's is a "Tough s#!t " policy, it appears....
I'm looking at options as I don't see any upside to that in this case.
As far as existing policy goes, we don't HAVE a policy on what to do with cars in existing classes being moved up to brand new classes.
Bill Miller
New member
Jake,
It doesn't matter if it's a new class or an existing class, we have a mechanism in place for moving cars. That mechanism has never included DC. As far as poor classing, wasn't that what a defined classification process and PCAs were supposed to address?
I'm not taking a 'touch $hit" approach, I'm just trying to avoid special-case treatment again. Nobody worried about the ITA cars that got moved to ITB having to buy all new wheels. In fact, some said (and IIRC, you were one of them, but correct me if I'm wrong) that they would more than likely be happy to do that because now they wouldn't be back markers. You could just as easily make the same arguement about having to re-cage a car that had an under-sized cage for its new weight.
It's not that I'm against change or doing what's best for the Club and its members, I just don't think the DC thing is good for the Club, and its members, on the whole. I think it will bring with it more headaches than we can imagine now (see previous comments about unintended consequences). Give the S cars going to R a year to still run in S if they want to, but close the door after that, and don't extend DC to other classes.
It doesn't matter if it's a new class or an existing class, we have a mechanism in place for moving cars. That mechanism has never included DC. As far as poor classing, wasn't that what a defined classification process and PCAs were supposed to address?
I'm not taking a 'touch $hit" approach, I'm just trying to avoid special-case treatment again. Nobody worried about the ITA cars that got moved to ITB having to buy all new wheels. In fact, some said (and IIRC, you were one of them, but correct me if I'm wrong) that they would more than likely be happy to do that because now they wouldn't be back markers. You could just as easily make the same arguement about having to re-cage a car that had an under-sized cage for its new weight.
It's not that I'm against change or doing what's best for the Club and its members, I just don't think the DC thing is good for the Club, and its members, on the whole. I think it will bring with it more headaches than we can imagine now (see previous comments about unintended consequences). Give the S cars going to R a year to still run in S if they want to, but close the door after that, and don't extend DC to other classes.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
The core differences at this debate are simple. People have brought real benefits of a DC policy - however limited - to the thread. Most, if not all, of the fear of 'unintended consequenses' are pur speculation - or simply a 'don't do it because we can't predict the outcome' thought process.
Allowing it in limited scenarios seems to have many more benefits than drawbacks.
Allowing it in limited scenarios seems to have many more benefits than drawbacks.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
It does when the new class is higher....and cars will have to be de-engineered and rebuilt at great possible expense.
But when a small subset of a class gets pulled from that class and has to go backwards in the development cycle, they ARE "special cases"
Actually people on the ITAC DID worry, and discuss the consequences of the downward move. It was a concern that they would be forced to buy new wheels, and, it was also discussed that they would have to add weight. In the end, after discussig it with each other and considering member input, it was decided that it was the right thing to do. It's considered that the move was to fix a classing mistake, that while painful to a degree, it would result in happier members, it seemed the fairest place for the cars, and it was the best remedy available.
Lines get drawn, and in that case, the line got drawn on the non recage side. Those cars stayed put.
I think terming it "Special case" is a misnomer...we're looking at categorical policies. IT's not about the XYZ 2000R...it's about anY car that falls under a specific set of guidelines. We have discussed certain cars here, (and I didn't want to) to help illustrate the situation, but those cars could be anything....if we write the policy correctly.
Bill Miller
New member
And w/ DC, you don't have to draw a line. And that line was arbitrary. I'd rather build a 2275# Rabbit GTI for ITC, or I'd rather build an xxxx# 1st gen RX7 for ITB. If you're going to use DC as a tool to bring more people and cars to the track, don't take such a myopic viewpoint of it. Sure, existing cars would need be re-caged if they moved down, but not any new ones that were being built.