Weight added to BMW e36

[apr67]

And when you break a MG crank, how much is it?

The myth is not a myth. If it were, Production would not have required the prop up by the limited prep cars. Everyone would have stayed.

Ask Chris Albin if Prodcution is more expensive than IT. He runs both, can win most any ITB race, and the same can not be said in production (yet). He's told me several times its much more expensive.

But hey. Have fun!

 

[Bill Miller]

Alan,

You implied that you couldn't get a competitive Prod car for $25k. I simply showed you that there were several that were currently available for less than that. Can you build one from scratch for that? Probably not, but we all know that you lose 1/2 to 3/4 of the value of the cost to build a car, when you go to sell it.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[JIgou]

Originally posted by chuck baader:
...actually I think you could build a front running SM for around 35k...

I would hope that, if anyone spends 35k to build an SM, they don't have any dirt under their fingernails at ANY point in the process....

Jarrod

 

[apr67]

You implied (in my mind) that a $25K prod car was equal to a $25k it/sm car.

It's not. A 25k front running production car is going to require a much higher $/hour of run time than an IT/SM car.

In a race of 50 SpecMiata, how many will loose an engine?

 

[Bill Miller]

Alan,

That's the beauty of the limited prep cars. Most of the EP cars are limited to 12:1, and the small-bore (FP-HP) are all <11:1. Couple that w/ stock cranks, IT-prep heads, etc. and you certainly don't have the 15:1 hand grenades that were the stock and trade of Prod 10 years ago.

And I never implied that a $25k Prod car was the same as a $25k IT car. I simply pointed out that you could get National-level Prod cars for $25k (or less). These were cars thaat would be competitive at the Runoffs, not running around at the back of the field, as you claimed.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[OTLimit]

Alan,
I'm not sure if he would say that EXACTLY. Certain things are more of a problem.

But I'm not sure you can keep including the price of expendables every time they have to be replaced. There is just more routine check/replace items on the G car.

Besides, you are making an assumption that Chris KNOWS how much he spends on either car. Sometimes I just think he doesn't realize how much he is spending; there is a difference. But I still don't think that we have that much more in the GP car than the IT car.

And to respond to the three car mentality... of course it takes three: tow, trailer, and race. But we were talking about the cars themselves.

------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

 

[apr67]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Alan,

That's the beauty of the limited prep cars.

I wasn't talking about limited prep. I haven't seen a whole bunch of Runoff winning LP cars yet, much less for sale.

Alan


[This message has been edited by apr67 (edited November 15, 2004).]

 

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
Darin, knowing that we consistnetly face rules interpretations that may fly in the face of the original intent, and knowing that ideals and attitudes change with administrations, I think it would be a FINE idea to specifically put this intent in the rules NOW. Otherwise, 10 years from now we may see a devolution into true comp adjustments, with the basis of "well, we don't KNOW their intent, so we just have to go by the stated rule and adjust for parity (or allow spherical bearings, or allow intake porting, or allow MoTec ECUs, yada, yada, yada...)

GA

Well, I for one can believe that we're much less likely to see that now, since we actually have a club that is working to make long-range plans. Instead of working on anecdotal problems, SCCA is actually trying to formulate changes that will set trends rather than react to circumstances. I'll be the first to admit that the process still needs improvement, but I would hope that the guys here in the AC's and CRB can attest to finally working along a true philosphy (not that mythical class-philosophy thing they always cite when shooting down the battery relocation thing though...)

I'm just hoping the trend continues.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

 

[seckerich]

It does seem like reality is finally setting in for the comp board. The entire comp meeting was always the members rangling to get an advantage for their particular car in prod for the next runoffs and the IT crowd gets screwed with "not consistent with class philosophy". We spend our money with this club just like them and now we want some time spent on some rules that allow the IT classes to grow and be competitive. With the large amounts of ballast that will be added with reclassification and PCA's we need to allow this to be added in a safe way. Grand Am has the weight in a box in the original passenger seat area and provides a safe, secure, and realistic mounting location instead of in the footwell where it will kill any chance of balancing the car. These are race cars after all!! Rules creep is a crock, allow normal race car mods and get on with it.

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by apr67:
I wasn't talking about limited prep. I haven't seen a whole bunch of Runoff winning LP cars yet, much less for sale.

Alan


[This message has been edited by apr67 (edited November 15, 2004).]

Alan,

As I stated before, l-p is the future of Prod. The CRB has said that they will no longer class full prep cars. They're not phasing out the ones that are there, but there won't be any new ones. Also, IIRC, EP was won the last 2 years by a l-p car (Miatas). And I see you've gone from just being competitive to wanting a Runoffs' winning car. Any, this discussion is pretty pointless.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by seckerich:
Grand Am has the weight in a box in the original passenger seat area and provides a safe, secure, and realistic mounting location instead of in the footwell where it will kill any chance of balancing the car. These are race cars after all!! Rules creep is a crock, allow normal race car mods and get on with it.

I'm not sure weather you are supporting opening up the weight rules, or are in favor of keeping the weight in a box on the passenger floor, but I can tell you this...

The weight is being added to COMPENSATE for a predicted performance advantage the car has over other cars in the class. It's not there to help "balance out" the chassis... That would be a performance ENHANCEMENT. The idea is to slow the car down, take away some of it's handing, braking, accelleration, etc...

As for getting "balance"... I sincerely doubt you are going to see weights exceeding 200lbs too often, and all that's going to do is offset the weight of the driver and steering column...

Rules Creep is real, and it's what makes classes like SS evolve into Production. If you want to keep this class around, we have to keep a cap on how far we allow people to mess with things. If you need a higher level of prep, the SCCA provides ample opportunity to move up, which really is the idea...

When you are ready to do more, check out Production or GT...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[seckerich]

I have run production for 15+ years and was very familiar with the cost of full prep compared to limited prep, and the comparison to IT. I currently run a limited prep EP Rx7 as well as my ITS car. I agree that the weight will be added to slow the cars down, and I was only pointing out that the intent is not to totally kill the handling with the weight location. It is SENSIBLE to locate the weight safely across from the driver in the beefed up portion of the floor where the seat was mounted. The ballast will slow the acceleration and kill tires and brakes plenty from there and still allow the driver some balance to drive at the limit. Isn't that what racing is about, not driving a pig that flies down the straight?

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by seckerich:
It is SENSIBLE to locate the weight safely across from the driver in the beefed up portion of the floor where the seat was mounted.

Darin, have the new ballast rules been published yet? It's getting hard to keep up with what has become public and what hasn't.

As for the comment "these are race cars" that just doesn't fly. Sorry. These are still production based cars with limited modifications. The "these are race cars" theory has been presented to allow all sorts of things that don't fit class philosophy. That's just the way it is. For those who want to make their car "more of a race car" there is limited prep Production. Not trying to be a smarty pants, but it would be very easy for these cars to effectively become l-p Prod cars if we buy into that line of thinking. And it's the feeling of the bulk of the IT community that this line of thinking is what pushed Prod down the wrong path.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Geo:
Darin, have the new ballast rules been published yet? It's getting hard to keep up with what has become public and what hasn't.

George,

The 100lbs limit has officially been removed... We'll inquire about the rest on Monday nights con-call...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX