Weight added to BMW e36

  • Thread starter Thread starter RR
  • Start date Start date
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Actually, I had hoped my last post demonstrated otherwise. I DO think speed creep is inevitable.
Click to expand...

Maybe speed creep isn't what I'm against. I'm starting to think class creep is a more descriptive phrase. On this premise I'll accept that speed creep is inevitable. Newer, faster stuff is sold each year; eventually they should end up in IT. What I don't like is the idea that current cars should be pushed out to make room for newer cars.

Cars get older, parts get scarce and new stuff must be allowed in.
Click to expand...

No argument here. Z cars are still fairly cheap and plentiful, at least in the desert southwest, but this may not be true for other cars or in other parts of the country.

The two ways to do this are simple:

Slowly eliminate the competitiveness of the older stuff by pushing cars down the food chain to make room for the newer, more powerful and better designed stuff in SS right now
Click to expand...

What end is served by pushing cars, and thus members, out? Unless you mean taking currrently competitive cars and moving them down a class, but is that any different than:

Develope a new class above ITSto have aplace for these cars to run while still maintaing the current competitive babalce as best as possible.
Click to expand...

I don't particularly care if my car has an S or a V or a whatever on the side if I believe have a reasonable chance each time I go out.

Interestingly, we have had some feedback that keeping the same amount of classes is fine and that the only thing we are doing by 'protecting' ITB and ITC is creating a vinatge class within IT...has SOME merit but I think we can do more.

AB
Click to expand...

I do to. I can't think of a damn thing I can do about it, but if you do please let me know.


------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division
 
Originally posted by x-ring:
What end is served by pushing cars, and thus members, out? Unless you mean taking currrently competitive cars and moving them down a class, but is that any different than:
Click to expand...

No end is really served, it's just a fact of life. If you keep the same amount of classes AND move cars down as faster stuff hits your 'fastest' class, the competive nature of the slowest cars suffers.

For example: There are some mid-pack ITC cars right now. As the trickle-down happens, the slower ITB cars get dropped in. The weigh adjustments made to them put them in the top 3rd of choices. That 'pushes' the lower cars further down.

That exact thing is happening to the ITA RX-7 right now as the slower ITS cars move down...

Not an idea solution, don't get me wrong, but just the facts as I see them.

smile.gif


AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Andy, I think your logic is flawed when you want to punish a complete line of cars because several drivers in the country..as you mentioned..have the money and desire to spend 50-75k developing a car. Speedsource cars were probably the starting point, and possibly the Robello Z cars. The fact remains, however, that given equal drivers, he who spends the most will most likely win. What we have here (E36) are very good drivers that are able to outspend the average racer. Are we to penalize everyone when only several can excell? I am soooo glad I am not on the committee trying to weight these questions. Chuck
 
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Are we to penalize everyone when only several can excell?</font>
Click to expand...

We are not "penalizing" them; they penalize themselves by failing to prep their vehicles to the fullest extent that the rules allow.

Rulesmakers must consider is that someone - at least one person - will prep to the fullest extent allowed and have the best driver, thus showing the true potential of the vehicle. Short of restricting specific prep to specific vehicles (a la World Challenge VTS sheets), there's really no other equitable way to do it. - GA
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
That exact thing is happening to the ITA RX-7 right now as the slower ITS cars move down...
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the 1st gen Rx-7 used to be an ITS car as well.
 
Yes the 1st gen RX-7 certainly used to be an ITS car.

When I first started racing IT (a LONG time ago), I raced a Porsche 914 2.0 4-cyl, which was an ITS car, and not a very good one at that.

The following year, the car got moved to ITA, where it still had no real chance, and finally, we have moved it to ITB, where it may possibly have a remote chance of doing well.
 
And don't forget that many cars were thrown in S when the category was MUCH smaller, and it was done in a "lets see how it does" manner.

Also, the whole trickle down thing makes sense when you remember that the number of ITC cars is the smallest, and the number of ITC backmarkers is smaller than that! Therefor, moving cars down will penalize the smallest group possible. Besides, there is the possiblity that certain examples could be given breaks of some nature, but the numbers of car that will suffer are very small.

On the other hand, when you have a car that is clearly head and shoulders above its well developed competitors it marginalizes an entire class....the numbers of competitors who suffer is far greater.

Trickle down should benefit the most competitiors, and hurt the least number.

IMO, it's the best compromise if done proprerly.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
The E36's power potential (documnented) far exceeds this envelope and the 'FB' examples are proof.
Click to expand...


How about sharing your documented evidence with the forum?
 
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer:

How about sharing your documented evidence with the forum?
Click to expand...

In what format?

I have seen dyno sheets from a top-3 ARRC car in the 208rwhp range. Head taken off and found in compliance.

Top engine builders are now quoting 'ABOUT' 15 more WHP since that car was built. The 208 figure was WITHOUT MOTEC.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
In what format?

I have seen dyno sheets from a top-3 ARRC car in the 208rwhp range. Head taken off and found in compliance.

Top engine builders are now quoting 'ABOUT' 15 more WHP since that car was built. The 208 figure was WITHOUT MOTEC.

AB
Click to expand...

Please email the dyno sheets to the email address below or scan and post to the forum. If this is what is being used to base decisions affecting a lot of people, it should be public information.

Mzealot(@)Bellsouth.net

"And engine builders are quoting", doesn't exactly sound like documented evidence to me.
 
Bruce,

The dyno sheets are not my property. Why would I post something that wasn't mine. If you don't believe me, that's fine. As far as your hearsay comment, call Bimmerworld and ask them for a quote. It's gonna cost you but the ponies are out there.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Originally posted by Asok #25:
Andy

Maybe you need to read Jake Glick’s protest story again.
Click to expand...

Except this was at the ARRC.

It's funny to me that all the BMW guys don't believe the numbers when they HAVEN'T spent the money it takes to get the power. I am looking for cars with a CUSTOM header, full Rebello build and machining AND MOTEC...ya'll out there?

There is a 8whp difference in our equally prepped Speedsource motors. Not that you can do much to these things internally but it just exemplifies the differences between motors.

It's also well documented that some of these top engine builders only give the ULTRA good stuff to the top drivers. A well known PSM driver spent over $10k each on his motors...whats the difference? Your guess is as good as mine.

Seems like this is just like drivers. "I am driving at 100% of the cars ability - so I must be getting beaten by that car or a cheater." 9 times out of 10 that mid-pack driver will get a nice reality check when he has a top 3 driver run his car.

Sorry to ruffle any feathers but the power is out there. These are awesome cars with awesome engines. I wish I had the E36 M3 back that I drove at the 1997 Solo 2 Nationals.

AB

[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited November 04, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
A well known PSM driver spent over $10k each on his motors...

9 times out of 10 that mid-pack driver will get a nice reality check when he has a top 3 driver run his car.
Click to expand...

On item 1: It'll cost you that for a true limit of the rules engine in about any car - the 4AG in the ITA MR2, for instance, is no exception.

On item 2: That's why a "top 3" driver will drive my limit-of-the-rules car as soon as I get it sorted. In all fairness, I'm a fair driver, but I'm no Andretti. The MR2 is too fast for ITB at its current weight, but with an extra 150# or so it would fit right in. Same with the 12A RX-7's. And lightening it enough to make it competitive in ITA is not doable under the current rules.

I DO have to give the ITAC credit - Darren and Chris have been working with me on this for a while - and I believe that the proper decision will be made when all the "Test data" is in.


------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]
img107.jpg

Website: home.alltel.net/jberry
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Bruce,

The dyno sheets are not my property. Why would I post something that wasn't mine. If you don't believe me, that's fine. As far as your hearsay comment, call Bimmerworld and ask them for a quote. It's gonna cost you but the ponies are out there.

AB
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have to back Andy up 100% here. Anybody who expects us to have copies of dyno sheets from the best builders of their best work are on another planet.

Look guys, we all would like us to have all the very best information with 100% legal cars, blah, blah, blah. We on the ITAC would as well. But as is nearly always the case in racing, we have to get the best information we can and very rarely does it come with indisputable proof. But we still have to make decisions and sometimes make our best guesses. I think generally we can get reasonably reliable information and can get a pretty good gut feel for the BS.

But Andy is right. If you don't go all the way with your engine build and prep, don't tell me what cannot be done. Heck, two great builders and get very different hp from a "to the limit of the rules" engine, so just because some people are getting what others are is not a reason to believe it cannot be done.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Geo:
Yeah, I have to back Andy up 100% here. Anybody who expects us to have copies of dyno sheets from the best builders of their best work are on another planet.
Click to expand...

Andy wrote that he had documented proof of legal M50 motors making at least 208 RWHP. The fact of the matter is he doesn't. The only thing anybody on this forum can provide is more conjecture regarding this engine.
 
Originally posted by Bruce Shafer:
Andy wrote that he had documented proof of legal M50 motors making at least 208 RWHP. The fact of the matter is he doesn't. The only thing anybody on this forum can provide is more conjecture regarding this engine.
Click to expand...

Actually Bruce, if you read carefully, I believe I wrote that the power potential WAS documented and that I had SEEN the sheets. I never said I HAD any documents in my posession.

BTW: congrats on your short-course track record at Sebring...that Dean motor must be strong!

biggrin.gif


AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top