Who was the genius that thought up that rule. ITR = ITS cars which will not be running the ITS restrictor. When JP was formulated ITS cars ran in JP now that they made the ITS cars slower the ITS cars that didn't choose to run the restrictor run in ITR. So now those cars that haven't gotten any faster are now I Prepared. Who does the thinking for BMW club? a monkey? Seriously did they even open an SCCA rule book? I mean I had plans to run ITR because its more competitive but if i do that I run IP in my JPrepared E30 M3 which is completely legal in ITR and in JP. I just don't get it, the cars that were once legal in JP are no longer legal simply because SCCA changed their class designation. ITS cars are nothing more than old ITS cars that aren't running the new restrictors. So these cars got no faster and no slower.

Can someone please explain the lack of research and knowledge as well as the theory behind this rule?

The only explanation I can think of is the BMW club making yet another effort to keep the SCCA out of the BMW Club.

Who was the genius that thought up that rule. ITR = ITS cars which will not be running the ITS restrictor. When JP was formulated ITS cars ran in JP now that they made the ITS cars slower the ITS cars that didn't choose to run the restrictor run in ITR. So now those cars that haven't gotten any faster are now I Prepared. Who does the thinking for BMW club? a monkey? Seriously did they even open an SCCA rule book? I mean I had plans to run ITR because its more competitive but if i do that I run IP in my JPrepared E30 M3 which is completely legal in ITR and in JP. I just don't get it, the cars that were once legal in JP are no longer legal simply because SCCA changed their class designation. ITS cars are nothing more than old ITS cars that aren't running the new restrictors. So these cars got no faster and no slower.

Can someone please explain the lack of research and knowledge as well as the theory behind this rule?

The only explanation I can think of is the BMW club making yet another effort to keep the SCCA out of the BMW Club.

Come on Andrew. Did you bother to think anything through before going on a rampage and calling people monkeys?

Here's the explanation: BMW CCA doesn't know how fast ITR cars will be yet (since it's not just 325's that must be considered), so they have temporarily placed ITR cars into IP at the request of a rules clarification until they have more data. It makes perfect sense to err on that side of things. ITR cars will be faster than ITS non-restrictor cars were due to upgraded wheels/tires.

For everyone who isn't up to the date on this issue, here's the clarification that Andrew is up in arms about:
Clarification: We do not yet have performance data on the new ITR class cars. A final decision will be made by 6/1/2007, when the final classification mappings will be made. Until that time, ITR cars will be classified one class above the class of the equivalent ITS car. If an ITS car would have been classified in JP, the ITR car will be classified in IP. This is a temporary classification, and will be finalized or adjusted once ITR performance data becomes available. We remind SCCA ITR racers that their car must be fully compliant to SCCA ITR rules; there is no mixing and matching of rulebooks.Andrew, here's my advice: Instead of a childish rampage, write a simple letter to the rules committee with supporting evidence as to why you believe ITR cars should be classed in JP.

By the way, you state above that your car is perfectly legal for ITR and JP. If that is in fact the case, why would you need to run IP in BMW CCA? Just declare your car as JP and be done with it. You'd only be forced into IP if you declare your car as ITR (which you would only need to do if you have performed some SCCA-only mods to your previously JP legal car, like monoball suspensions, aftermarket ECU, etc).

Quick question: In the past you have said that your car was pretty much maxxed out to JP rules when complaining that the E30 M3 is an underdog to E36 325's. Since you now say that your car is legal for both JP and ITR, does that mean that you don't have cams or upgraded injectors in your E30?

we do have cams at the time of our review of ITR rule book there was new clarification on that. If it has changed i will look into it. I don't really care it just seems silly. I mean one serious competitor i had in JP is now IP i will still be racing with him his car is no faster and no slower it just wont be for in class position.

I wasn't on a rampage, angry or any of that silliness. I just like to call people names and make myself feel better you know?

I am deep down sort of happy i don't have to race for position with a few E36 JP cars that are in ITR now. It was frustrating, the only boring part if we compare previous set lap times my race at VIR this spring will be a boring one unless these guys have some tricks up their sleeve and i hope they do. Id love a repeate of last years competition minus the 13/13.

I would write a letter but ill do it after i pick a a win or two by not having to beat Lytle. :)

Ball is right. A simple look at the specs will show you that these cars shouldn't be much faster than the IT-spec E36 was in 2004 before the SCCA cluster-fark with restrictions. 1.5" bigger wheels and 85lbs less will make SOME difference but then we ALL know a legal ITS car was NEVER a match for a properly built JP car...NEVER. If they ran with you, you have to look at your car, your prep or your driving.

BMWCR doesn't want crossover. It's obvious - and that is fine. The devils we know are better than the devils we don't.

I think we need to remember that the ITS/JP rule was a special case. It was there to attract BMW racers to BMW CCA Club Racing.
At the time it probably made sense. But the world continues to turn, SCCA revises it's classes based upon requests and new cars to classifiy. BMW CCA Club Racing revises it rules for classes based upon requests and new cars to classify. Each get to their rules thru their processes.
Why should either care? Each has a 'class' for any 'car'. It may not be competitive in that class, but is that the sanctioning bodies concern? Only when everyone leaves that class, or one car becomes an overdog.
In fairness, we haven't had a true ITS/JP crossover car in the West for I don't know how long. We have some guys with BMW-classed cars that sometimes play in ITE/ITS/ITR, but they don't really care about the class as much as the track time.

we ALL know a legal ITS car was NEVER a match for a properly built JP car...NEVER.

All you can go on are results...and up until this point, ITS cars have been VERY successful in JP. Losing 85 pounds and getting wider wheels certainly justifies BMW CCA issuing a TEMPORARY classing until they have more time to look into it.

BMWCR doesn't want crossover. It's obvious - and that is fine. The devils we know are better than the devils we don't.

It has nothing to do with BMW CCA trying to force SCCA racers away...if they hadn't wanted to do that, they never would have allowed 325's to continue running with the SIR. Think before you speak...the facts don't back up your assertion.

we do have cams at the time of our review of ITR rule book there was new clarification on that. If it has changed i will look into it.

Cams have never been allowed in IT. A quick look at the current rulebook confirms that. The only mention of cams in the entire IT rulebook is with regards to replacing plastic cam gears with metal.

A couple of questions? I have followed this debate about its/itr in ip/jp for a while now . My main question is if you run ITS specs in JP do you have to run the restrictor now . If you don't, where is the problem guys just don't run 17 inch wheels /put the x amount of wieght back in and run jp .that way you avoid the ip thing .And as far as e30 are concerned just run jp spec . Am I missing something here?

A couple of questions? I have followed this debate about its/itr in ip/jp for a while now . My main question is if you run ITS specs in JP do you have to run the restrictor now . If you don't, where is the problem guys just don't run 17 inch wheels /put the x amount of wieght back in and run jp .that way you avoid the ip thing.

You are way too logical and your post makes too much sense, please move along sir this is a place for rants. :stickoutt

Yes a no restrictor ITS car can run in JP.

Carlos.

Cams have never been allowed in IT. A quick look at the current rulebook confirms that. The only mention of cams in the entire IT rulebook is with regards to replacing plastic cam gears with metal.

Take a step backwards for a second. What kind of hp will a top 325 JP car make? What kind of hp will a top ITR 325 make? Now check the weight between the two and the allowable wheel sizes, allowable flywheels, clutches, etc. and brake mods. There's your answer! No damn way a ITR car should run in IP and they still should not be competitive in JP either.

All you can go on are results...and up until this point, ITS cars have been VERY successful in JP. Losing 85 pounds and getting wider wheels certainly justifies BMW CCA issuing a TEMPORARY classing until they have more time to look into it.
BS. Results are way too subjective. You are going to quantify car prep, tire life and driver skill level simply by finishing position and lap times? HA! When you take a look at the allowable mods, anyone can plainly see that JP and IP offer MUCH more potential than IT. Again, if the IT guys are keeping up, it's because they are at the top of their games and the BMWCA guys are not. Sorry.

It has nothing to do with BMW CCA trying to force SCCA racers away...if they hadn't wanted to do that, they never would have allowed 325's to continue running with the SIR. Think before you speak...the facts don't back up your assertion.
It's not about NOT allowing them, it's about allowing them to compete COMETITIVELY. The SCCA, in it's infinate wisdom has some rule that allows IT cars to compete in some new class they have created for old World Challange cars...ya - TONS of IT cars will run that! Duh.

Like I said, a hard look at the actual prep allowances holds the answers. It could be real simple.

i started a thread on this topic two months ago when i first asked for the clarification on where ITR cars would run and the rules committed made a call. right or wrong doesn't matter right now as it is temporary. i hope the rules committee sees enough data to make the right call on final placement, as it is not just about the e36 325...there are 6 other bmw's classed in ITR, including 328, 330, z3, 635, 325 (e46)...this will effect a bunch of folks.

maybe there aren't many scca/bmwcca crossovers on the west coast, but there are a bunch of us on the east coast...in the past ITS cars have made up 1/3 of the JP fields at some big events.

andy...are you SURE your e30 m3 is ITR legal? no cams, no big brakes, no big injectors, no areo, no 2.5l stroke, no light flywheel...etc...etc..? just asking. ITR is not the same as ITE. ITR is the same rules as ITS, just faster cars.

the only initial downside i see to the temp IP placement is if the bmw race is big enough to split the field. usually that split is between IP and JP. that would suck as the ITR cars (stuck in IP) would not be able to run against the JP cars for comparison before classing in july.

marshall

A couple of questions? I have followed this debate about its/itr in ip/jp for a while now . My main question is if you run ITS specs in JP do you have to run the restrictor now . If you don't, where is the problem guys just don't run 17 inch wheels /put the x amount of wieght back in and run jp .that way you avoid the ip thing .And as far as e30 are concerned just run jp spec . Am I missing something here?

yeah, you are missing that us ITR guys don't want to carry around 8 sets of wheels....half in 16x7 ITS/JP legal size for bmw races and half in 17x8.5 ITR size for scca races....:(

and the e36 325 is the only one of the 6 different BMW's classed in ITR that have the ITS/JP option.

The E30 M3 is really an underdong "in IT prep" compared to the other dogs in that particular fight.

I was pleased when they finally classified the car to run in IT,,, but then when I saw the rest of the class and what its against it was completely outgunned.
Heck, its still out gunned if they dropped it in ITS,,, but a much better fit in ITS than ITR.... But SCCA has always had a hard on for that car since 1988.

If you could build an e30 M3 to the very top end of GTS2,,, thats where I think it could really have a great place to race (other than JP).
In DM its now been completely legislated out of competitiveness other than maybe three cars in the US. (S14 powered cars we are talking about here).

If they were to reign in the DM displacement delta to something close to the other class displacement deltas,,, or expand EM ever so slightly to include the S14, then it would have somewhere to run in Mod.

Sorry for going off on a tanget,,, back to your rant...
Cheers
jimmy p

I have said before ITS cars are underdogs in JP. A fully developed JP car should smoke a full preped ITS car. That said there aren't many, if any full tilt JP cars that I have seen. When I say full tilt I mean everything allowed. I personally think that an ITR car will still be an underdog in JP. If I run my IT car in BMW I will stay at ITS spec and run in JP. I understand what BMW is doing, I just don't agree with it!

Results mean nothing as far as I'm concerned as a comparison on what class they should put these cars in. It should be how much potential there is from the allowed mods in each class. Just because ITS cars have done well against most JP cars doesn't mean that they are an even match. What I have seen is that there are alot more full blown IT cars than there are JP cars. That in my opinion is the reason for the results.

-Rick

When I say results, I mean results to see how much faster, if any, the new ITR cars are than the old ITS cars...especially since it's not just the well-known IT prep 325 that must be considered into the equation anymore. A clarification was asked for, and it was given quickly. BMW CR erred on the "safe" side of things until they could gather more information. Based on the wording of the clarification, how can you not help but think that CR likely intends to place the ITR cars into JP after a more in depth look at the potential of the cars?

My point is not to get up in arms and start calling people monkeys on an internet message board. That's the last thing that will bring about the change you desire. In the same amount of time Andrew wrote his note above, he could have fired off a kind note to the entire rules committee explaining his reasons for thinking that ITR cars should be placed into JP when the final classing is decided.

It's not about NOT allowing them, it's about allowing them to compete COMETITIVELY. The SCCA, in it's infinate wisdom has some rule that allows IT cars to compete in some new class they have created for old World Challange cars...ya - TONS of IT cars will run that! Duh.

Like I said, a hard look at the actual prep allowances holds the answers. It could be real simple.

Huh? How should BMW CCA allow SCCA IT cars to compete competitively? They have stock, prepared, and mod. If the rules structure were followed strictly, an IT car would be in Mod (spherical bearings, aftermarket ECU, etc). BMW CCA has made an allowance in it's rules structure to allow IT cars to compete in Prepared. Further, BMW CCA allowed ITS cars to compete without the SCCA required SIR. I'm still trying to understand how else BMW could make the IT cars "more" competitive in BMW CCA, especially since they seem to win a lot of races (noted, this has to do a lot with car and driver prep).

What does the World Challenge class in SCCA have to to do with BMW CCA?

I too think that ITR cars will at some point make there way into JP, but they will still be underdogs to a full tilt JP car imo. That said I think it's great BMW even lets the cars run with them. It will close the gap some for sure though. I understand why BMW classed them the way they did it's alot easier to drop cars down a class than to go up one. Atleast there would ALOT less bitching that way. :)

I also have to agree with you on the monkey thing!

-Rick





When I say results, I mean results to see how much faster, if any, the new ITR cars are than the old ITS cars...especially since it's not just the well-known IT prep 325 that must be considered into the equation anymore. A clarification was asked for, and it was given quickly. BMW CR erred on the "safe" side of things until they could gather more information. Based on the wording of the clarification, how can you not help but think that CR likely intends to place the ITR cars into JP after a more in depth look at the potential of the cars?

My point is not to get up in arms and start calling people monkeys on an internet message board. That's the last thing that will bring about the change you desire. In the same amount of time Andrew wrote his note above, he could have fired off a kind not to the entire rules committee explaining his reasons for thinking that ITR cars should be placed into JP when the final classing is decided.

I too think that ITR cars will at some point make there way into JP, but they will still be underdogs to a full tilt JP car imo. That said I think it's great BMW even lets the cars run with them. It will close the gap some for sure though. I understand why BMW classed them the way they did it's alot easier to drop cars down a class than to go up one. Atleast there would ALOT less bitching that way. :)

I also have to agree with you on the monkey thing!

-Rick
Yep, it's so easy to figure out, even a caveman could do it.

I too think that ITR cars will at some point make there way into JP, but they will still be underdogs to a full tilt JP car imo.

-Rick
This is the point. Class them 'properly' and more will come out. They are not going to upset the applecart. The conservative approach is admirable but IT cars in JP is ALREADY a conservative approach, no?

Yep, it's so easy to figure out, even a caveman could do it.
:lol
hey, who you calling a caveman dan? some of us might resemble that remark!

marshall

If not in JP, what would you suggest? You want them in JS? Or KP? Those are the next two "lower" classes. They would dominate cars in those classes, which would drive away cars actually built for BMW CCA racing. Think through this for a second. After that, offer some suggestions.

Why exactly should BMW CR go out of it's way to make sure a SCCA IT car is competitive in a BMW CCA class when they don't guarantee that any car is competitive in class? Just because someone wants to build an E24 M6 for IP doesn't mean that they should be competitive with a top prepared E36 M3 does it?

I think this thread is about IP, not JP. JP is the fair place Ball is looking for, no?

I think this thread is about IP, not JP. JP is the fair place Ball is looking for, no?

Yes. Which is where the cars will likely end up after BMW CR takes a look at things and issues the final classes. They made a quick clarification to give the cars a class to race in until the final decision could be made. Have you READ the clarification I posted above?

But you didn't say anything about IP, you said that you thought IT cars in JP was conservative. ITS cars have always been allowed to run in JP (WITHOUT the SCCA manadated SIR). You said that IT cars in JP was conservative, so I am asking you what you think the proper answer is.

hey, bmwcca is being good enough to accomodate a group of bmwcca members and racers who happen to have bmw's built for another series. this is good (especially given the history of the bmwcca prepared classes being based on the scca it classes). bigger car counts and fair racing is what makes this sport fun. i'll say again, the ip classing is temporary, i hope the rules committee gets comfortable enough with the itr performance envelope to class us in the right place.

my 325is will be at vir in april in full itr trim, with the "J" in "JP" taped over to look like "IP" :)

Yes. Which is where the cars will likely end up after BMW CR takes a look at things and issues the final classes. They made a quick clarification to give the cars a class to race in until the final decision could be made. Have you READ the clarification I posted above?

But you didn't say anything about IP, you said that you thought IT cars in JP was conservative. ITS cars have always been allowed to run in JP (WITHOUT the SCCA manadated SIR). You said that IT cars in JP was conservative, so I am asking you what you think the proper answer is.
Maybe we are saying the same thing but I don't think so. IP is not the place for ITR cars. JP is. I think reasonable people can look at the allowable prep - and the weights of these cars in IT and see that they fit JP without a hiccup. The IP 'temp' classing is overly conservative.

ITR cars will be alittle faster or should be anyway than an ITS car (with no sir). Wider wheels(wider tire) less sidewall, 85# lighter, ect. The problem is BMW has no data to go on. Like I said I personally think the cars should be in JP, and in time I think they will be. I think BMW just wanted to give the people a place other than SCCA they could run there cars, and I think that is very nice of them. Sure they want the fields to grow, but they didn't have to anything

-Rick


This is the point. Class them 'properly' and more will come out. They are not going to upset the applecart. The conservative approach is admirable but IT cars in JP is ALREADY a conservative approach, no?