There's been some discussion in other threads and on the CR SIG about the general definition or structure of the Prepared rules. I was asked to start a thread where this could be discussed.

Since we have several members that are club racers and also a couple that are involved in the rules process, discussions here may be useful. Or at least prompt thought and requests for rules changes during the appropriate time next year.

To start it off, I'd like to see Prepared be defined as a class where suspension was mostly free but engine/horsepower mods were mostly limited. Simply stated, Stock would be stock. Prepared would be where the supension could be developed with few limits. And Mod would be as it is now with few limits on engines, suspension and chassis.

What say ye?

Jay

To start it off, I'd like to see Prepared be defined as a class where suspension was mostly free but engine/horsepower mods were mostly limited.

And there is the other camp, which wants suspension to be stock-ish, and engine/hp mostly free. :D

It depends on your starting point and where you think you have an advantage.
In the past the 'headroom' in both the chassis and engine allowed quite a bit of development without getting into Pro level fabrication. It wasn't particularly hard to add 50% power output and strip weight out of a 2002. Try that with an E46 M3.

For me, Prepared kind equals 'bolt-on'. Mod kinda equals 'fabrication'.
So triple adjustable Motons = Prepared. Tubular A-arms and revised pickup points = Mod. Cams and injectors = Prepared. Larger valves, short skirt pistons, stroker cranks = Mod.

My 2 cents ...

I think this is a good discussion... for me, Prepared should be a class that involves suspension only upgrades. I currently run a stock engine except for headers and a CAI, the car is fast and fun to drive.
I have engine mods, cams, software etc sitting on the shelf. However to rebuild my motor and buy the OBDI upgrade goodies could run as much as $10k or more. I would rather buy a nice set of AD's or Moton CS dampers instead, then spend the rest on track time and tires. That said, I think that the BMW 6's are as powerful as they are going to be, no one is really putting alot of effort into development. You can "drag and drop" an engine together and have 99% of the HP that the next guy does. As far as body mods go I think the rules are spot on, the cars still look like BMW's and closely resemble a street car in most aspects.

In 2007 for the '08 rules I lobbied heavily, based on there being quite a bit of interest from informal discussions on the CR SIG, that we take away cams/brakes from Prepared. The idea was that this would start in '09 of course, it would not have been for '08. Anyway, there was enough momentum that we wrote it into the proposed rules for '08. However, right before sending them out for comment there was huge uproar behind the scenes and we decided to take it out.

Honestly my intention was to put it out there and see what sort of response there would be. I think last year the comment period was still questionable to many racers, they simply didn't understand that this was a proposed set of rules and that the idea was to gather comments to see if certain things were viable. We harped the point last year and this year it went over very well.

Anyway, point being, there was quite a bit of interest last year. I know there is always interest in keeping those things too. But it would have been nice to see, under the proposed conditions, what a good concensus was. I'm eager to hear all the comments - make that constructive comments - that can come from this thread.

Let's all try to remember though that this is a discussion, this is not a formal poll to see if these things get changed. Friendly discussion will be most constructive.

Cheers.

Suspension v. Engine depends upon what racers want out of the prepared class. As a former IP racer, I would vote to keep engines 'stockish' and suspensions free with stock pickup points. You don't want an expensive hp war in prepared and most racers would agree that you can find 2 seconds with suspension easier that you can find it in an engine.

Suspension v. Engine depends upon what racers want out of the prepared class. As a former IP racer, I would vote to keep engines 'stockish' and suspensions free with stock pickup points. You don't want an expensive hp war in prepared and most racers would agree that you can find 2 seconds with suspension easier that you can find it in an engine.

Well, I think it's safe to say that any such changes would not allow suspension to be free only requiring stock pick up points. There would still be limitations. The idea is not transfer the cost of building an engine directly to the suspension. While there are those who will also spend the last possible nickel to get the advantage I'd imagine the logic and philosophy of the rules would try to control it at least with some limiations.

To start it off, I'd like to see Prepared be defined as a class where suspension was mostly free but engine/horsepower mods were mostly limited. Simply stated, Stock would be stock. Prepared would be where the supension could be developed with few limits. And Mod would be as it is now with few limits on engines, suspension and chassis.

What say ye?

Jay

My feelings exactly. Limit engine mods, but free up suspension mods. Although I would not oppose limits on suspension (i.e. DA dampers) like we currently have. There should be no limitations on spherical bearing, etc. Limit the engine, set a minimum weight, let all else be "free."

Although I would not oppose limits on suspension (i.e. DA dampers) like we currently have.

Trust me, you want SOME limits on suspension...it's not a motor, but there's still plenty of places to spend $$ and even MORE to be gained by those who spend a lot of time/$$ testing and tuning. Then again, it would be nice to help spread out the development cost of these front control arms on our car. :stickoutt

Take away cams and intake manifold swaps( :devillook ), allow DA remote resevoir shocks and sphericals.

Why not leave things the way they are and quit mucking around with everything? The rules in Prepared have been pretty well defined for several years and most people are very content with them. We don't have to make changes just for the sake of change.

As far as going back to stock cams, do you have any idea how hard it would be to find several hundred stock sets of stock s14 cams? Then there's the brakes. There's no way those that have big brakes are going to shell out to go back to stock. It would be much easier just to go to mod. I think that's what a lot of guys would do if you force them to remove mods to the car they already have installed. Won't be competitive but who wants to make their car less powerful and brake worse.

These message boards are just a microcosm of a much larger pool of drivers. You get 10 vocal people wanting to change something and everyone forgets the 100s of other racers that are very happy with the way things are. IF there is going to be drastic change, I'd strongly suggest a prepared driver vote. Unless its over 50% to make the change it doesn't seem right to do it.

Trust me, you want SOME limits on suspension...it's not a motor, but there's still plenty of places to spend $$ and even MORE to be gained by those who spend a lot of time/$$ testing and tuning. Then again, it would be nice to help spread out the development cost of these front control arms on our car. :stickoutt


I agree. Those with a budget will find some place to spend the money.

I philosophically agree with less engine mods, and the concetration being on suspension setup, but don't understand the need to "free" up suspension. If all you want are spherical bearings at all locations, then great, but this doesn't fundamentally change the "philosophy" and I'd be willing to bet won't make a big difference in anyone's lap times. If by "free" you want to add adjustable components above those already allowed (DA shocks, adj. swaybars, ride height adjusters, springs) then I'd have to ask, how many more variables, do you want to play with?

Personally, I'm having trouble getting enough track time to work on the nut behind the wheel, much less optimizing the setup with the variables we currently have. At O'fest last year I felt a little out of my league when every other IP car had their own crew (some with hired professionals) checking tires temps and pressures on the pit lane during every practice and qualifying session, while I drove all the way back to my paddock spot at the end of the session to check everything myself after it had obviously cooled down on the way (yes I know I need to make more friends, but most of them were racing their own cars). That being said, on my "home" track I did OK with a non-adjustable Group N setup, but was at more and more of a disadvantage as the others figured out the track and the setup over the weekend. This type of gap would of course only widen with more allowable chassis modifications.

If you simply want to go faster for less, let's talk about weight reductions. As long as you don't hit anything, composite body panels are pretty much a one time expense, and don't require any setup expertise!

As far as going back to stock cams, do you have any idea how hard it would be to find several hundred stock sets of stock s14 cams?

Surely there aren't several hundred E30 M3's competing in BMW CCA Prepared?

IF there is going to be drastic change, I'd strongly suggest a prepared driver vote. Unless its over 50% to make the change it doesn't seem right to do it.

I think it's fairly obvious that such a change would be part of a proposed set of rules that could be commented on by the racers. The rules committee has no reason not to take the advice of the majority.

I don't care either way save for the fact that I see a class with "stock" power and significant amounts of suspension development allowed as a class that I would be very interested in.

I think it's fairly obvious that such a change would be part of a proposed set of rules that could be commented on by the racers. The rules committee has no reason not to take the advice of the majority.


Why does it even get to the point that the rules committee is messing around with the whole structure of prepared? Just because they are on a committee doesn't mean they have to change everything. Where are all these dozens and dozens of Prepared drivers that are gushing there disapproval with the way things are? The rules committee shouldn't change the structure of prepared unless the drivers are asking for it.

Most people don't like change even if it is an improvement. We tend to resist it regardless of whether its better for us, call it human nature or something. In this case, I don't see the underlying need for a major class restructure though. Most folks in prepared seem pretty happy with the way things are. We can mess with the engine a bit and we can play around with the susp a bit. Both are a lot more than stock class but much less than Mod. Its a pretty happy median.

In the end, it doesn’t matter what the rules are, not everyone will be happy. Right now though, the vast majority of the prepared drivers seem pretty content. Why change that?

[COLOR=black]In the end, it doesn’t matter what the rules are, not everyone will be happy. Right now though, the vast majority of the prepared drivers seem pretty content. Why change that?

I would think in the big picture you want to grow the series. What would make a DE person say, "hey that's pretty much my car plus a cage (and other safety equipement)." I would say what I hear from instructors and other advanced drivers is, "well I'd do it but I can't afford (insert expensive item here: big brakes, cams, engine rebuild, diff) to be competitive."

A free suspension is not the answer, I agree that a limit has to be set. Spherical bearings? Sure go nuts, there's plenty out there and not terribly expensive. Remote reservoir shocks? No. Sure there are affordable options but as soon as you allow it the big spenders will drop money on Motons/Ohlins/Penskes/etc and make sure that the people that are on the fence to participate in prepared stay there. Folks that want to start club racing don't want to drop $6K+ on shocks. I would believe that thinking in terms of what would attract more people to participate be kept in mind instead of just what I want right now cuz I have these parts already and I'm dying to try them out type of mentality.

Cheers,
Carlos.

Why does it even get to the point that the rules committee is messing around with the whole structure of prepared? Just because they are on a committee doesn't mean they have to change everything. Where are all these dozens and dozens of Prepared drivers that are gushing there disapproval with the way things are? The rules committee shouldn't change the structure of prepared unless the drivers are asking for it.

There's no messing around at this point. Just discussion. This is not the 1st time these kinds of ideas have been floated. Apparently enough to get the attention of at least some in CR admin.

In the end, it doesn’t matter what the rules are, not everyone will be happy. Right now though, the vast majority of the prepared drivers seem pretty content. Why change that?

You mentioned that this is just a microcosm. I agree that we're a small percentage of licensed club racers. But, of the 10 or so who have posted so far, you seem to be the only one who wants not to have the discussion at all. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's but I'm not sure you speak for the vast majority. IMO, healthy discussion is good.

Jay

There's no messing around at this point. Just discussion. This is not the 1st time these kinds of ideas have been floated. Apparently enough to get the attention of at least some in CR admin.



You mentioned that this is just a microcosm. I agree that we're a small percentage of licensed club racers. But, of the 10 or so who have posted so far, you seem to be the only one who wants not to have the discussion at all. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's but I'm not sure you speak for the vast majority. IMO, healthy discussion is good.

Jay


Healthy discussion is great. But, where did I say I don't want to discuss? I guess you take exception because I want to discuss why I don't think they need to be changed. Its just as valid an argument as any other. In reality, its more to the point than singling me out because I am the only one that disagrees with the proposal of restructuring the class.

I think if anything major, like cams or brakes, were taken away from Prepared it would cause some serious heartburn for many. It would certainly cause some to move to Mod. I've been a party to "take away" and I didn't like it. It cost me money and time. That being said, I'd still like to find a way to make these types of change.

I'd like to throw out 3 thoughts.

1) I believe most who have worked their way up to the advanced groups in schools and HPDEs have probably already done things to their cars that would preclude an entry into CR Stock. In my case, Prepared was where I started in CR.

2) The expense of entering CR is large. The expense of being competitive is much greater. Even with the current rules one can easily spend over $2K on shocks alone. I'm guessing much more. Allowing both the suspension mods and engine mods currently legal in Prepared may double the expense to be competitive. Eliminating engine mods would certainly narrow the areas for expenditures. It may even allow more to be competitive instead of also rans. I can't see that as a bad thing.

3) Growing CR and the sport is a big concern. Making it easier and less expensive to get started is certainly a draw. Making the fields larger saves us money on entry fees and also allows for the use of more expensive tracks. I was very disappointed to not have an event at Sears Point this year. More bodies is always good. Not to mention the added comraderie.

Jay

Prepared cars make the majority of racers (at least in my experience of the races I ahve been to). Making "take away" rules can alienate these racers and push away the ones that are on the fence (and may push some over that weren't) to other series. The idea of adding classifications is not appealing, but Prepared lite or super stock (or a class that reflects what a typical DE driver might have added to their cars) might be an option to explore. I think engine mods need to be out of the class.

I think this is a good discussion... for me, Prepared should be a class that involves suspension only upgrades. I currently run a stock engine except for headers and a CAI, the car is fast and fun to drive.
I have engine mods, cams, software etc sitting on the shelf. However to rebuild my motor and buy the OBDI upgrade goodies could run as much as $10k or more. I would rather buy a nice set of AD's or Moton CS dampers instead, then spend the rest on track time and tires. That said, I think that the BMW 6's are as powerful as they are going to be, no one is really putting alot of effort into development. You can "drag and drop" an engine together and have 99% of the HP that the next guy does. As far as body mods go I think the rules are spot on, the cars still look like BMW's and closely resemble a street car in most aspects.

sounds good to me

I think you're going to find a wide range of opinions when it comes to Prepared rules and specs since some much as changed over the past few years.

I think it should be simple:

Stock Class = stock vehicles + safety equipment

Prepared Class = improved components/materials but retaining original factory configurations (pick up points, engine displacement, etc.) + removal of non critical systems/components (interior, AC, etc.) + safety equipment

Modified Class = Any BMW chassis and everything else is free + safety equipment

Healthy discussion is great. But, where did I say I don't want to discuss? I guess you take exception because I want to discuss why I don't think they need to be changed. Its just as valid an argument as any other. In reality, its more to the point than singling me out because I am the only one that disagrees with the proposal of restructuring the class.

It's not my intention to single anyone out. Nothing personal. I was just responding to things you said. I hope we can have differing opinions without
feeling attacked. I don't want to do anything that would stifle healthy discussion.

Having said that, it was my perception that your inferrence was we were a small group that was not in touch with the majority of Prepared racers. Maybe you're right.... maybe you're not. There are licensed Prepared racers asking for and in favor of these kinds of changes. If there's little to no interest, it'll die or never get the support of the majority.

Jay

I support this discussion and I think it might be fruitful if not to make a change, but to at least understand the landscape of opinions. I think that any significant change needs to have long-term strategy to reduce costs for people and enable them to plan and budget accordingly.

I am mixed on this issue of an additional class. Although it does complicate things and reduces the number of people per class, an additional class to divide the big Prepared spenders and those starting from a DE perspective makes some sense to me. At the same time, I think a low-budget car can be campaigned with some success. For example, we won the class at the Roebling sprint race last year in a competitive field on stock power and overweight by 150+ lbs.

I apologize in advance, I've skimmed the thread only, but wanted to add my 2 cents as someone who's run Prepared for ~6 years (and seen a lot of changes :) ). Putting specific mods aside, I do have an issue with the "philosophy" of Prepared currently - which I did express to my RAC rep recently.

When I started in 2001, the philosophy of Prepared, as stated in the rules, was (from the 2001 rules, in the CR archives online):
"The PREPARED class is intended to invite vehicles prepared for SCCA Improved Touring competition into BMW CCA Club Racing. In order to accommodate those enthusiasts with modified, street driven vehicles, some compromises beyond the SCCA regulations have been incorporated into these rules. The intent of this class is to allow the more progressive enthusiast and the experienced racer to participate in BMW CCA Club Racing with a higher level of preparation that is still street licensable, street drivable and in keeping with the spirit of the “original” vehicle."

Contrast that with what's in the current rules:
"The PREPARED classes allow participation with a higher level of modification than the Stock classes, but remain in keeping with the spirit of the “original” vehicle. All Stock class improvements are also allowed in the Prepared classes."

Not a big change, but significant I think. Except for one car currently up for sale (ironically, by the person I bought my car from), I know of no other Prepared car that is still driven to/from the track in my region. I've witnessed first-hand the growth of Prepared and how the cars have progressed beyond any attempt at "street-able". Certainly I'm making compromises in order just to do this "racing" thing (no truck, no trailer), which I accept. But I just wanted to point out that there has been a documented shift in philosophy for Prepared.

I guess as things change, I'll just put whatever class letters on the car that are appropriate - I realize that unless I do major work to the car I probably won't be "competitive" in class like I used to be. But that's OK, I still have way too much fun. Plus, I don't think my wife would want me home EVERY weekend :)

Jim

I think you're going to find a wide range of opinions when it comes to Prepared rules and specs since some much as changed over the past few years.

I think it should be simple:

Stock Class = stock vehicles + safety equipment

Prepared Class = improved components/materials but retaining original factory configurations (pick up points, engine displacement, etc.) + removal of non critical systems/components (interior, AC, etc.) + safety equipment

Modified Class = Any BMW chassis and everything else is free + safety equipment
I agree. Also I don't see it as cost savings if we have to remove or replace in order to keep current with the rules. As we had to do with the suspension.

I too support the discussion and would like to voice my opinion to leave the rules just as they are. If you're going to allow headers and intakes, your engine rebuilds are still going to approach the 10K range if you want to be ultimately competitive. One of the things I like about prepared is the ability for the new guys to "work their way up", meaning, run the stock motor for now, then maybe do cams later, then upgrade the MAF/software and custom-tune. It's not necessarily about FORCING the cost of entry down, which is what eliminating cams and software would do. The costs borne by so many current "customers" would be too great, if the main concern was to benefit the new "customers". Alienating your current client base is a bad idea, IMO.

I'm trying to figure out how to afford this at all, so make sure some class is essentially stock going forward. Speed = money and some have more than others....:(

We ran for almost 2 years with a stock motor before we upgraded, and even then it was a little bit at a time. We were not in the front with a stock motor but we weren't in the back either. The experience of working your way up through the class is invaluable.

Personally, I'm planning to start club racing this November at the BW race. I've been building my car for JP for the past 2.5 years. It's really nothing to crazy, but it's damn near fully built to JP rules.

I have to guestimate I've spent about $25K on my car, not including tires/brake pads.

I've got TCK custom valved DA's, swaybars, solid rear subframe mounts, and most all bushings have been replaced to the 07 rules.

I've got big brake setup, running 17x9" wheels.

Engine is 2.8L OBDI with M3 cams making 228RWHP, I will have to remove my aftermarket pulleys, but that wont cost me any power.

I run a 3.91 rear diff, but it's only a stock rebuild, so it's not as good as some of those $2500+ ones.

Just comparing lap times, as I haven't raced with CCA group yet, my car should be competitive with the Mid pack IP cars out here in SoCal. But we'll see.

As far as rules, I think a closer look at weights would be good. I haven't thrown my car on scales since I fully gutted and put the cage in, but with a rollbar and interior I was already below Min weight for a JP 2.8L car.

But as far as setup, I think the Prepared rules as they are, actually make a pretty damn good racecar for fairly inexpensive costs.

If you want cheeper or stock motor, etc, there is always Spec E36.

I don;t have $25k.....CRY.....:(, I guess I will have to go used and forget about the joy of building your own

This should have been done from the start, at least in my eyes since I was one of the origianl guys pushed into mod cause of sphericals. First of all, we should have started with different rules.
Stock- no brainer, it's good the way it is
prepared- IT rules
Mod- free suspension, and engines they way prepared is now
Super mod- go nuts

You Will lose many preparred racers, but you will gain new ones. This will push people to NASA, but soooo many are going that way without a big push anyways.
E30 M3 guys, you NEED this to be able to beat a "to the limits" E36 at any long track.

I too support the discussion and would like to voice my opinion to leave the rules just as they are. If you're going to allow headers and intakes, your engine rebuilds are still going to approach the 10K range if you want to be ultimately competitive. One of the things I like about prepared is the ability for the new guys to "work their way up", meaning, run the stock motor for now, then maybe do cams later, then upgrade the MAF/software and custom-tune. It's not necessarily about FORCING the cost of entry down, which is what eliminating cams and software would do. The costs borne by so many current "customers" would be too great, if the main concern was to benefit the new "customers". Alienating your current client base is a bad idea, IMO.


I have to agree. I think if they took away cams and software, more people would turn around and have to spend more money to jump up to MOD or they would just spend more money on building Special Motors. Especially those folks that are already used to the power they are curretnly making. They will be hard pressed to live with 20 or so less HP.

Heck I'm at 228 from a 2.8L and I'm trying to figure out how I can afford what I need to add another 15-20rwhp.

I don;t have $25k.....CRY.....:(, I guess I will have to go used and forget about the joy of building your own

Heck, neither do I anymore!!!!!!!!!!! Actually $25K is on a pretty good budget of getting bargains and sponsors, and everything. And starting with a $1250 car!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you think you can build any descent BMW for less than that, I'd have to say your gonna have to look at running Spec E30 or E36. I think even Stock class will cost you more than the Spec classes. You'd need those fancy custom stock type struts and stuff and a blueprinted motor.

Yeah, PLUS, I don;t have a trailer or tow vehicle.....so , I will do DE's and some Race SChools with "Baby", pictured left, until I can figure this all out.....or hit the Power Ball...:)

All I can say is....already looking forward to like a WEEK at the Glen next year at O Fest....:)

So the issue with Prepared is linked to the Stock class, IMHO.

Prepared lives between Stock and Mod. Most folks know Mod :)
Stock sadly is a bit confused. Most HPDE students, by the time they are 'Advanced' students, already have a car with more mods than Stock allows. Plus the work required to go from Stock to Prepared makes heading straight to Prepared more attractive. (The cage needs to be redone, since the interior is gone for starters).

In a lot of ways the NABR (for the East Coasters that was the rival series we had on the West for a couple for years as a protest to the changes in CR) rules make sense. They defined loose rules for mods, and then used hp/weight to sort cars into classes with a preparation category.

In a lot of ways the NABR (for the East Coasters that was the rival series we had on the West for a couple for years as a protest to the changes in CR) rules make sense. They defined loose rules for mods, and then used hp/weight to sort cars into classes with a preparation category.

Woohoo! :redspot I'm all for HP/weight classing.

Jay

Heck, neither do I anymore!!!!!!!!!!! Actually $25K is on a pretty good budget of getting bargains and sponsors, and everything. And starting with a $1250 car!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you think you can build any descent BMW for less than that, I'd have to say your gonna have to look at running Spec E30 or E36. I think even Stock class will cost you more than the Spec classes. You'd need those fancy custom stock type struts and stuff and a blueprinted motor.

A top flight SE36 car will run $25K.

A top flight SE36 car will run $25K.
Tell me about it!!!!!! I'm sure I have 25 in my car..:eyecrazy

does your wife know that you have over $10k in it...?...;)

Heck I'm at 228 from a 2.8L and I'm trying to figure out how I can afford what I need to add another 15-20rwhp.

When you find the additional hp...lemme know. I pretty much have the same specs as you and could use some extra power.

I'll vote leave things as it is. Maybe lower the min. weight would be good.
I'm not going to spend time and money to remove parts just to stay in JP...and there's no way i'm gonna run DM...

Maybe...those who dont want to spring for cams, get a weight 25-50lb advantage?

Woohoo! :redspot I'm all for HP/weight classing.

Jay

What is the argument against it? Seems like it would greatly simply things, be relatively painless to implement, and provide a fairly level playing field.

does your wife know that you have over $10k in it...?...;)
No and don't tell her.
I sold a Lotus Elise to build this car. It was suppost to be cheaper..:shifty

What is the argument against it? Seems like it would greatly simply things, be relatively painless to implement, and provide a fairly level playing field.

Some of the arguments against are:

Change - don't want any

Cheaters - can't have a dyno at the track, different s/w maps for dyno time and race time

I'm sure there are others.

Jay

Let me throw this out for discussion: What about Dyno and have a power to weight ratio like NASA does? ... Many of the I Prepared cars because of custom tuning are walking away from the H Prepared cars. The rules state you can do certain mods, but the classification system is using the power to weight to classify the cars. Thus, causing the Prepared class to be a money issue. Who wants to spend more then the next guy?

I like the system, but how do we as racers keep the classification system in line? Again, I will use the e36 M3 as an example. Classified as an IP car with 240 HP and weighing 2970 pounds which equals 12.37 power to weight, but in reality many of the cars now exceed 300 HP or 9.90 power to weight. Some cars might even be at 330 HP or 9.00. Fair? Great discussion.

Many of the I Prepared cars because of custom tuning are walking away from the H Prepared cars.

I bet that wouldn't be the case if the HP cars were taking advantage of the rules to the same extent the IP cars are. I know from first hand experience that the S54's REALLY respond well to tuning. I've heard they like cams as well.

As for the power/weight formula...where do the funds and volunteers come from to provide the dyno at the track for a group as small as ours? Besides, there's PLENTY of advantage to custom tuning in a power/weight class as well. Maximizing torque while limiting the horsepower to maximize the amount of power under the curve for a given power/weight ratio can work out to a huge advantage and it takes a lot of dyno tuning and custom programming to get it right.

As for the power/weight formula...where do the funds and volunteers come from to provide the dyno at the track for a group as small as ours? Besides, there's PLENTY of advantage to custom tuning in a power/weight class as well. Maximizing torque while limiting the horsepower to maximize the amount of power under the curve for a given power/weight ratio can work out to a huge advantage and it takes a lot of dyno tuning and custom programming to get it right.

AFAIK, NASA doesn't have dynos at the track. I guess they rely on a certain amount of honesty. I think we could do the same. If a guy wants to cheat, he'll find a way to do it. I believe the majority of CCA racers are not that way.

Jay

Another thing was mentioned a while back that caught my attention. Someone said give the IP guys without cams a weight break. I knda like that. I'd suggest adding weight to the cammed cars instead of making the minimum less for the "lite" cars.

Jay

Another thing was mentioned a while back that caught my attention. Someone said give the IP guys without cams a weight break. I knda like that. I'd suggest adding weight to the cammed cars instead of making the minimum less for the "lite" cars.

Jay

I think you'll get a big pushback from the guys that have already invested in cams and proper tuning since it's allowed by the current rules. I don't think a weight penalty is fair just because someone doesn't want to fully build out a motor for the class.

I think you'll get a big pushback from the guys that have already invested in cams and proper tuning since it's allowed by the current rules. I don't think a weight penalty is fair just because someone doesn't want to fully build out a motor for the class.

I think it was suggested as an alternative to taking cams away. I'm sure that would cause an even bigger pushback.

Jay

I don't get it. Prepared is the most popular group of classes in all of BMW club racing. We want to change this well received/accepted rule-set why? Is it because a bunch of folk who have modded their cars for DEs won't fit nicely into an established rule-set "if" they decide to begin club racing? Cars can always be sold, and cars can always be bought. Are people complaining that the $25K they put into their "DE Championship" car will not favor an acceptable return on their "investment" upon resale in order to purchase a rules-compliant race car? Or is it that their "DE Championship" car will not be competitive once they install the long-forgotten safety equipment required for club racing and try to qualify for their first race?

If Prepared classes are deemed too expensive to competitively campaign for some, what is it about the Stock rule-set that doesn't appeal to them?

I would like to see a list of recently submitted opinions/complaints/suggestions to see from where this discussion has stemmed. I seem to be missing something.

Christopher

I think you'll get a big pushback from the guys that have already invested in cams and proper tuning since it's allowed by the current rules. I don't think a weight penalty is fair just because someone doesn't want to fully build out a motor for the class.


with the current rules, yes its unfair.

But if it comes down to the point between taking a small weight penalty vs banning cams, I'd take the weight penalty.

I'm just hoping it stays as is.

AFAIK, NASA doesn't have dynos at the track. I guess they rely on a certain amount of honesty. I think we could do the same. If a guy wants to cheat, he'll find a way to do it. I believe the majority of CCA racers are not that way.
Jay

This season I went to a few NASA events. Some had a portable dyno at the event and others didn't. You presented your certified dyno sheet but at some point (if they chose to) you'd get weighed. I believe at only one event a GTS entrant got reclassified for not having a certified sheet.

Well if anyone knows how NASA runs is our current chairman as he's involved with NASA as well. I like power/weight as well.

Carlos.

I would like to see a list of recently submitted opinions/complaints/suggestions to see from where this discussion has stemmed. I seem to be missing something.

Christopher

These kinds of discussions have been going on for some time. Recently, in another thread that got off onto this topic, someone was asking for more freedom in the suspension rules for Prepared. Someone else said would you trade cams and injectors for more freedom with suspension?

My answer is yes. I'd like to see Prepared be more about developing a race suspension and driving than building big HP.

Come on in.... the water's fine.

Jay

I don't get it. Prepared is the most popular group of classes in all of BMW club racing. We want to change this well received/accepted rule-set why? Is it because a bunch of folk who have modded their cars for DEs won't fit nicely into an established rule-set "if" they decide to begin club racing? Cars can always be sold, and cars can always be bought. Are people complaining that the $25K they put into their "DE Championship" car will not favor an acceptable return on their "investment" upon resale in order to purchase a rules-compliant race car? Or is it that their "DE Championship" car will not be competitive once they install the long-forgotten safety equipment required for club racing and try to qualify for their first race?

If Prepared classes are deemed too expensive to competitively campaign for some, what is it about the Stock rule-set that doesn't appeal to them?

I would like to see a list of recently submitted opinions/complaints/suggestions to see from where this discussion has stemmed. I seem to be missing something.

Christopher
I agree 100% !!!

IMHO the best way to grow CR is to have a stable rules platform. Certainly, the prepared class has had significant rules creep since it's inception, but trying to put the Genie back in the bottle is going to be difficult, painful and costly to many.

The hp/weight classification of cars is interesting and works in theory, but my guess is that it will open up a Pandora's Box of other issues and open up an endless spending spree for racers willing to spend money to have a top flight car within their respective classification. As we all know, hp/weight is a significant factor in speed and lap times but that leaves open a broad spectrum of potential modifications.

I am always open to the discussion of changing the rules to improve CR, but I think it is important to make sure what we do will have a positive impact on the future of CR and not make the mistakes of the past. FWIW, I don't really have any issues with the rules as they stand today, but i do think it is important to make sure we INFORCE them and prevent any future changes that allow for additional rules creep.

Scott
#762 IP

Let me throw this out for discussion: What about Dyno and have a power to weight ratio like NASA does? ... Many of the I Prepared cars because of custom tuning are walking away from the H Prepared cars. The rules state you can do certain mods, but the classification system is using the power to weight to classify the cars. Thus, causing the Prepared class to be a money issue. Who wants to spend more then the next guy?

I like the system, but how do we as racers keep the classification system in line? Again, I will use the e36 M3 as an example. Classified as an IP car with 240 HP and weighing 2970 pounds which equals 12.37 power to weight, but in reality many of the cars now exceed 300 HP or 9.90 power to weight. Some cars might even be at 330 HP or 9.00. Fair? Great discussion.

The NASA method is to measure rwhp, not crank hp. So a stock M3 with 240 is probably around 205-210 rwhp, and most of the very good (assuming IP-legality) IP motors with 320 crank hp are probably about 275ish at the wheels. There are probably a few mega-dollar IP-legal M3 motors out there that may be at the 285-290 rwhp range (330+ crank hp), but I don't think they are many. So for a GTS3 ratio of 11.0-14.49, car with driver, an IP-legal car that weighs 3000 can have 272 rwhp, which is a pretty healthy crank 320ish hp. Most IP cars in NASA GTS3 will be able to remove some ballast (if they have any) and get down close to the 11.0 ratio because of the rwhp method.

I like the NASA GTSx method, but I also like the current Prepared rules. I have already invested in cams and software, although I still run stock brakes, so you can go ahead and make big brake kits illegal anytime, that's cool with me :D

Cheers,

Vern

I'd like to see Prepared be more about developing a race suspension and driving than building big HP.
Jay

So... you feel that you are underpowered compared to more competitive cars in your class? J/K The fact of the matter is, you can't build "big" horsepower in Prepared as it is. Considering what a "stock" rebuild costs, throwing some hotter cams and custom tuning doesn't add much to the final cost. If you want to be competitive in a stock class, your stock engine better be a "good" one.

Testing, however, is very expensive. Have you rented a track privately before? Cheap tracks can be had for under $1,000 a day/car, but that doesn't include transport/etc. Most tracks are significantly more expensive. You can't do proper chassis/suspension development in a 25 minute session DE environment. You need to run a car for hours in order to record comparative results.

The guys with more $$ will run better engines under the current rule-set, and the guys with more $$ will do more testing/development in a suspension-specific class structure. Perhaps you will see an increase in club racing participants with a revised rule-set, but once they realize that no matter how "cheap" or "fair" the class appears on paper, there will always be a group of competitors who out-class you.

Christopher

Another thing was mentioned a while back that caught my attention. Someone said give the IP guys without cams a weight break. I knda like that. I'd suggest adding weight to the cammed cars instead of making the minimum less for the "lite" cars.

Jay

While we're at it let's add some weight to the 3.2L cars so that the 3.0L cars aren't forced to source a 3.2L engine to be competetive.
:evil2

While we're at it let's add some weight to the 3.2L cars so that the 3.0L cars aren't forced to source a 3.2L engine to be competetive.
:evil2
AARGH! starting to sound like a spec IP class, why don't we spec a tire too!

NASCAR = close racing = fun to watch. Club Racing is fun when there is close racing. I am not saying the we need to have the spec class in Prepared. Just the framers of the CR rules are using a power/weight to classify the cars. Maybe when the car exceeds the class power/weight then it needs to be placed in the next class? A few IP cars have 290 RWHP? 340 Crank HP. WOW! BTW: I don't know anyone who has gotten 100 more HP of an S54 with cams and tuning.

AARGH! starting to sound like a spec IP class, why don't we spec a tire too!

And here we are at the root of the question !!

Is Club Racing, and in particular Prepared Class cars, supposed to be equalized, or do we want variety?
Backmarkers don't want to be backmarkers for life. They want equality.
Front runners spent money (either on chassis, engine or driver development), and want to reap their rewards.

Do you think this conversation is any different at the GrandAm? NASCAR? F1?

NASCAR = close racing = fun to watch. Club Racing is fun when there is close racing. I am not saying the we need to have the spec class in Prepared. Just the framers of the CR rules are using a power/weight to classify the cars. Maybe when the car exceeds the class power/weight then it needs to be placed in the next class? A few IP cars have 290 RWHP? 340 Crank HP. WOW! BTW: I don't know anyone who has gotten 100 more HP of an S54 with cams and tuning.
290RWP! I need to talk to someone! We only have 250 with cams. No wonder we can't catch some of these guys!

So... you feel that you are underpowered compared to more competitive cars in your class? J/K Christopher

Why yes...... yes I do :help

Jay

Suspension, SCCA IT rules, simple effective, not a big departure from what it is currently. Eliminates the you can have this here but not here bidnes.

Engine, stock with external bolt ons, let me have my OBDI manifold, intake, header, TB, free tuning of the stock management system. I'll be happy with that, just enough to be different from SCCA IT.

Drivetrain, LTW flywheel, stock type clutch as is current. Differential same as current. Free engine/tans mounts and transmission crossmember.

Chassis and body/aero, same as current.

I chose to go prepared because I didn't want a stock class car, for many reasons. I want to have the opportunity to develop a car. I see prepared as a driver development class, developing the nut behind the wheel to use the circle and squares as well as diagnosing and tuning the chassis.

If prepared stays as is I'm cool with it. I knew exactly what I was getting into when I bought the car I wanted for transformation into IP car. Cams, custom tunes, expensive dampers, big wings, brakes if I chose. I chose IP because it seemed to have the densest population of "fast guys" that I could compete with on my budget. At the time I bought the donor, Mueller, White, Riley, Rieman, Mariani, Tillinghast, and Berkowitz all ran IP. I like to jump in the deep end with a tall measuring stick I guess. I won't be running cams for a while (well until O'fest 08) as there seem to be too many folks having issues with getting cars to run right, right now I want to turn laps and my rig has to be running to turn laps. I can't deal with not being able to get out due to an ill car with as limited as track time is to me with my current work schedule.

FWIW, I am not licensed with CCA yet, I do have a IP car sitting in my garage and you will see it on track in 08 racing in the northeast.

Jay, Thanks for starting this thread - I have not read it for a day and it is already 3 pages long!

First of all, I am the one who joked that if someone wanted free suspension and spherical bearings, then they would need to "give me back" their cams and injectors. To my surprise he said "sure"!! This was an unofficial joke and was not meant to start anything - although I like this disucssion.

No one is "looking to change" anything. We, the Rules Committee, react to what the racers do/want. We react in several ways. We "Clarify", we "Answer" questions, and then we write in these clarifications and answers into the following year's rule book. We have a commitment to the program and to growing it effectively and correctly. And as the Rules Committee has done in the past, rules stability is always a desire. Sometimes that stability is threatened by racers pushing the gray areas and sometimes it is threatened by human mistakes, but it is NEVER the intention to do something controversial just to piss someone off.

I don't know what the answer is. Heck, I don't even know the question yet, or even if there really is a question. I have been approached by some of my constituents (thanks Jim) about the spirit of Prepared Class when they joined and how it feels like to them that the class has changed. Bottom line is, it HAS changed. Stock class has changed and the evolution of drivers from DE A-Group into club racing puts most of their DE cars into prepared with very few able to class their cars in Stock. This was not the intent of "Stock Class".

So - whats the answer? And as someone above mentioned, the class philosophy of Prepared is an evolution past stock. Used to be ITS crossover as the basis for Prepared - that is no longer the case.

So - we listen to the population. We take surveys (like we have done recently - I am told there will be more of those) and we hear what the racers want. Then we really try to understand how we move forward. If I had to chose now, I would probably keep the rules like they are now and really increase compliance and enforce penalties for rules infractions. But, I don't get to make that decision.

So - keep up the discussion. It's nice to hear/read, even if it is only a "small representative sample of the most vocal racers."

Hey Shea,
As to what "Ivan Z" is going on about I don't know..., however I second your thought on the 3.0 vs. 3.2 lit. There's only so much one can get outta the 3.0l given the various stuff one can do w/ the 3.2 (ie. S or M50 intake runners adv. in addition to the .2 of a litre that they already have...)

As an owner of both a set of Schricks and Sunbelts, I'd be happy to go back to a "no cams" rule (not so sure about the BBk's though...I like the stopping power), I can totally see and understand how such an elimination would push many into mod as opposed to taking a step back to a slower car. That said, I DO think there is merit in say (+40 or 50 lbs) for anyone using cams vs. those w/o to "even" the IP/JP fields as well as maybe a similar formulae to address the M/S50 intakes on 3.2 litre motors. (it's easy to do...guys with the pistons in e30's or doin' it)

Suspensions should be liberal but not as far as triple adjustable Moton's or Ohlins. Sphericals throughout and more adjustments/latitude in other areas of suspension is/would be good.

Dave R
#65, IP (...For Sale)

Hey Shea,
As to what "Ivan Z" is going on about I don't know..., however I second your thought on the 3.0 vs. 3.2 lit. There's only so much one can get outta the 3.0l given the various stuff one can do w/ the 3.2 (ie. S or M50 intake runners adv. in addition to the .2 of a litre that they already have...)

As an owner of both a set of Schricks and Sunbelts, I'd be happy to go back to a "no cams" rule (not so sure about the BBk's though...I like the stopping power), I can totally see and understand how such an elimination would push many into mod as opposed to taking a step back to a slower car. That said, I DO think there is merit in say (+40 or 50 lbs) for anyone using cams vs. those w/o to "even" the IP/JP fields as well as maybe a similar formulae to address the M/S50 intakes on 3.2 litre motors. (it's easy to do...guys with the pistons in e30's or doin' it)

Suspensions should be liberal but not as far as triple adjustable Moton's or Ohlins. Sphericals throughout and more adjustments/latitude in other areas of suspension is/would be good.

Dave R
#65, IP (...For Sale)
As an owner of a 3.0, it was a joke! All that I am saying is that I think the rules are fine the way the way they are. We can create a witch hunt trying to figure out every little advantage of every car. When driver ability can be just as important as the car.

I'm actually kinda suprised now that I think about it that a 3.0 and 3.2 are the same weight, when you go down to JP and a 2.5 and 2.8L are are 95lbs different in weight. Then you throw in some of the SCCA ITs/R cars and they get 145-230LB lighter weight than a normal JP Spec 2.8L car.

I know the main topic here is "Prepared" but for the most part everyone is just thinking about IP, what about the other classes.

I think the Prepared rules are quite nice how they are they allow quite good suspension, with minimal "development" and are somewhat restrictive on engine mods.

I'm also invovled with some Nasa American Iron car, they are strictly Power to weight, and believe me, WE DON"T want to go there. EVERYONE is CHEATING in that class. Some Fuel Injected cars are making 50+ HP more than they are supposed to on track, but somehow meet their HP numbers when on the dyno. I've watched video of cars with Supposedly equal HP and one drives away from the other, even when they get on throttle 2 seconds later!!! Power to weight in Theory is good, but until someone comes up with a fool proof way to Police it, it wont work as well as some may think.

Iwould like to see a list of recently submitted opinions/complaints/suggestions to see from where this discussion has stemmed. I seem to be missing something

this particular thread originated here: http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=852437&page=3

my $0.02? formulate the BMWCCA class structure so that racers can compete in other racing venues such as SCCA or NASA and still be competitive. this would, IMHO, draw more crossover racers who can compete and get the most out of their dollar spent on their car development.

i personally dislike the idea of stock prepared-class motors and unlimited suspension. i like the idea of "a higher level of preparation" in all areas, motor included, and I personally would not spend unlimited amounts of money on a suspension that requires lots of tuning and testing and time, while having a completely stock motor. my racecar modifications have come in steps while I learn the car and learn what racing is all about. Free suspension would make it more difficult for a learner like me to set up a car competitively since I would have a steep learning curve in suspension setup.

where racing is involved there will always be disparity depending on who can spend the most money. those with the most money will usually be most competitive. i believe this philosophy applies to all levels of pro racing as well as amateur racing. so I don't believe BMWCCA should attempt to create equality by limiting money spent except in the spec classes. if you want to be competitive without spending (relatively) as much money, build a spec car. i realize i will be relatively less competitive in C-mod than I-prepared because of finances, but I'm willing to accept my limitations and live with it.

basically, i favor keeping the rules as they are except for allowing racers to be more competitive in other racing venues.

I think the Prepared rules are quite nice how they are they allow quite good suspension, with minimal "development" and are somewhat restrictive on engine mods.


i agree

my $0.02? formulate the BMWCCA class structure so that racers can compete in other racing venues such as SCCA or NASA and still be competitive. this would, IMHO, draw more crossover racers who can compete and get the most out of their dollar spent on their car development.

I'm all for some crossover between sanctioning bodies, not at all in favor of a hp/weight series. I think that you still have to give the advantage to any driver who builds there car to the limit of the rules for your series. I'm not saying to make an SCCA/NASA car obsolete but if I commit to a set of rules for BMWCCA and build my car to that I better have an advantage over someone who has built an extent of the rules SCCA/NASA car. Simple reward for committing to a series/sanctioning body.

The hp/weight stuff, I really just don't like it. Its NASA's thing, let them have it.

Hey Shea,
As to what "Ivan Z" is going on about I don't know..., however I second your thought on the 3.0 vs. 3.2 lit. There's only so much one can get outta the 3.0l given the various stuff one can do w/ the 3.2 (ie. S or M50 intake runners adv. in addition to the .2 of a litre that they already have...)
Dave R
#65, IP (...For Sale)

Thanks Dave!

Of course if they gave me the weight advantage I'd have to find another excuse ;)

I'm not at all in favor of a hp/weight series.

The hp/weight stuff, I really just don't like it. Its NASA's thing, let them have it.

Very good discussion...

The BMW CCA Club Racing classification system is based on power to weight. The question becomes how do we keep the legal modifications from turning the system into a joke. I am guessing that adding 75 to 100 HP (40%) to the stock HP numbers was not thought possible when the rules were written. And, for most BMWs, those numbers are not possible with simple bolt-ons items. Now that we know those numbers are attainable in certain cars what do we do?

A few IP cars have 290 RWHP? 340 Crank HP. WOW! BTW: I don't know anyone who has gotten 100 more HP of an S54 with cams and tuning.

A) Where's the proof that IP cars are making 290 RWHP? I need to see those dynoes. That's a lot of power...certainly possible, but wow.

B) I bet the S54 will respond as well, if not better, than the S52 based on what I've seen from S54's so far. It's just that no one has put in the R&D as they have on the S52. The head and intake on the S54 flows REALLY well...just opening up the exhaust and some custom tuning should result in a BIG jump in power. The rules allow for more than just cams and tuning. Cams, intake manifold, headers, exhaust, tuning...all open for modification in Prepared. I've been EXTREMELY impressed with the power our S54 makes with nothing more than a 1 point bump in compression and KK headers.

If Prepared classes are deemed too expensive to competitively campaign for some, what is it about the Stock rule-set that doesn't appeal to them?Not to derail the current discussion, but there is only one thing about the Stock rules that really bugs me: the fact that you can't add front camber plates. This is especially ridiculous when you're allowed to run R-comps in that class. That means destroying expensive track rubber. That means competing against guys who bend the rules by bending their shock towers. That means 99% of the cars you see at the upper HPDE levels will need to pull out an inexpensive (~$250) part that greatly improves the car's handling and significantly increases tire life.

Getting back on topic, many of these rule changes seem to be about lowering the cost of entry. Running a spec tire (such as the RA-1 or even a good street tire) would greatly reduce costs. It's no fun running against a guy with a trailer full of Hoosiers when you're trying to stretch a set of RA-1's through an entire 3-day weekend. A spec tire (or a street tire) in the Stock class would go a very long way towards controlling costs. It seems to work well for SCCA World Challenge. I don't see why we need to run Hoosiers in CR Stock classes when Bill Auberlen, Boris Said, etc. are happy running RA-1's (and T1-S street tires before that).

Emre

Hi, I'm a newbie to this scene and trying to scrape together my money to start IP racing. I have a little bit of an tangent question related to the rules for IP. I purchased my car with the thought that it would be a good building block to IP racing, but I have found that is not the case. Moton Club Sports, spherical bearings (until next year?), and a cage design with bracing that is not allowed. I can see how the shocks would give a noticeable advantage over cheaper setups and the spherical bearings as well.
What is the thinking behind not allowing cage supports going to the top of the differential? Does it add significant rigidity to the car? Sorry if this is getting too specific, its just one of the bigger ticket (3k+ for new cage) items that I'm facing as I try to get started.
-Stuart
(I can't post images yet farm1.static.flickr.com/115/312509619_063d14c8ab.jpg)

What is the thinking behind not allowing cage supports going to the top of the differential? Does it add significant rigidity to the car? Sorry if this is getting too specific, its just one of the bigger ticket (3k+ for new cage) items that I'm facing as I try to get started.
-Stuart
(I can't post images yet farm1.static.flickr.com/115/312509619_063d14c8ab.jpg)

That's not the top of the diff, that's the rear subframe mounting points. That cage would provide additional stability and stiffness in the rear - therefore it falls within the Mod Class level of preperation.

Also, it wouldn't be $3000 to cut those bars out.

I think if anything major, like cams or brakes, were taken away from Prepared it would cause some serious heartburn for many. It would certainly cause some to move to Mod. I've been a party to "take away" and I didn't like it. It cost me money and time. That being said, I'd still like to find a way to make these types of change.

I'd like to throw out 3 thoughts.

1) I believe most who have worked their way up to the advanced groups in schools and HPDEs have probably already done things to their cars that would preclude an entry into CR Stock. In my case, Prepared was where I started in CR.

2) The expense of entering CR is large. The expense of being competitive is much greater. Even with the current rules one can easily spend over $2K on shocks alone. I'm guessing much more. Allowing both the suspension mods and engine mods currently legal in Prepared may double the expense to be competitive. Eliminating engine mods would certainly narrow the areas for expenditures. It may even allow more to be competitive instead of also rans. I can't see that as a bad thing.

3) Growing CR and the sport is a big concern. Making it easier and less expensive to get started is certainly a draw. Making the fields larger saves us money on entry fees and also allows for the use of more expensive tracks. I was very disappointed to not have an event at Sears Point this year. More bodies is always good. Not to mention the added comraderie.
Jay

a) Maybe it is too logical but the first club race at a HPDE I attended I said I gotta do that, then went home and read the rulebook, then started asking racers for some advice. Keep it simple.
b) Sounds great, but it sounds like an agenda, a parallel to rules creep. (just an observation not an indictment) :)
c) If we are to grow club racing then we need to develop some club racers. The race schools are the best thing we have going, we need to direct HPDE students from gruppe A to race school.


I think you're going to find a wide range of opinions when it comes to Prepared rules and specs since some much as changed over the past few years.

I think it should be simple:

Stock Class = stock vehicles + safety equipment

Prepared Class = improved components/materials but retaining original factory configurations (pick up points, engine displacement, etc.) + removal of non critical systems/components (interior, AC, etc.) + safety equipment

Modified Class = Any BMW chassis and everything else is free + safety equipment

I think this is where BMWCCA CR started, bet everyone started changing the rules because they thought it would help, them. Reminds of great golf courses designed by renowned architects, then people on the green committee start taking out trees and removing bunkers they don't like (ie can't avoid) I'm a rookie, someone with early experience tell me if i am wrong.

I don't get it. Prepared is the most popular group of classes in all of BMW club racing. We want to change this well received/accepted rule-set why? Is it because a bunch of folk who have modded their cars for DEs won't fit nicely into an established rule-set "if" they decide to begin club racing? Cars can always be sold, and cars can always be bought. Are people complaining that the $25K they put into their "DE Championship" car will not favor an acceptable return on their "investment" upon resale in order to purchase a rules-compliant race car? Or is it that their "DE Championship" car will not be competitive once they install the long-forgotten safety equipment required for club racing and try to qualify for their first race?

If Prepared classes are deemed too expensive to competitively campaign for some, what is it about the Stock rule-set that doesn't appeal to them?

I would like to see a list of recently submitted opinions/complaints/suggestions to see from where this discussion has stemmed. I seem to be missing something.

Christopher

1+
I stated on the CR sig that the reason that others have outgrown us is that they run their own DEs and do a better job of growing new racers. I think the best thing we as a group could do is volunteer for our local BMWCCA HPDEs in large numbers and nuture these guys into CR. We should have a "seminar" at every BMWCCA HPDE "How to become a CR for less $$$ than gruppe A champion".

I think the best thing we as a group could do is volunteer for our local BMWCCA HPDEs in large numbers and nuture these guys into CR. We should have a "seminar" at every BMWCCA HPDE "How to become a CR for less $$$ than gruppe A champion".I don't know how much of an issue this is for you guys "south of the border," but in Canada I think this has been handled poorly by many chapters. For some crazy reason that I still don't fully understand, many chapters of the BMW Club of Canada have either banned outright or made it very difficult for guys to run their "race cars" at driving schools. That means the Intermediate, Advanced, Solo, and Instructors who happen to Club Race are either not welcome to attend or are forced to run their daily drivers. I think this makes it pretty difficult to introduce the idea of CR to the HPDE crowd.

When guys running the Advanced or Solo groups see CR cars sharing the track with them, I think it generates a lot of interest. If they never see these cars and meet these drivers, then CR might never make it onto their radar. Also, I think keeping the BMW CCA CR mailing and discussion list essentially private (as opposed to an open forum like this one) is unproductive. It keeps non-racers in the dark.

Emre

I'm one of those DE guys getting ready to make the move up to racing. I've done NASA events and track days run by California and Arizona clubs but nothing with BMWCCA. Having decided to buy a dedicated track car, I had to choose what kind. I was prepared to spend $20k-$25k. After much thought and research, I chose to go with the IP M3. Perhaps the rules guys will find my reasons interesting. I liked the idea of a car that I could run in NASA as well as a club like BMWCCA (or PCA or POC). I wasn't looking for a trackable street car, or even a streetable track car; I wanted a dedicated race car, but not one that would bust my budget to be competitive. For some people, that means a Miata or a Gen I RX-7, for others it means a GT3 Cup car. I could afford $20k-$25k plus $2k for an open trailer. I liked the idea that IP cars are modified -- that you get to play a bit and learn a thing or two in the process -- but that there are limits on the madness. Sure, there will be people who spend more than I do and have faster cars for it, but I know that I can still have a competitive car, and I've seen friends win races not with bucks but with talent, beating cars that should have beat them. I don't expect a level playing field, I just don't want the tilt to be so severe that I'm falling off. Also, I appreciated the relative professionalism of BMWCCA and the consistency of its rules. Finally, I took a drive. I had been driving high-horsepower howlers before then. I felt that to develop my skills (and run within my budget) I should move down in power, but having tasted speed in very fast cars I still wanted at least a little umph. I also wanted a car that had a raceworthy suspension but seeing a friend spend almost half of my entire budget just on his Motons, I wanted some limits. The IP-legal M3 seemed like the right fit. More race car than Spec Miatas, etc., while being more dependable, less trouble and with lower operating costs than the old Porsches, they appeared to have the right combo of power and suspension for the guy making the transition from track days to race days. So now I have my '95 M with Sunbelt cams, new headers, a track pipe, and the other usual goodies, honing my skills and looking forward to becoming the newest member of the IP crowd, and I read that the club is contemplating taking some of the goodies away? Aside from being totally disappointed (and peeved) that I just shot my budget to buy a built-out IP-legal car, I wonder -- is less power + Motons going to attract more people to BMWCCA or fewer? From the point of view of this neophyte, I gotta say, fewer.

What is the thinking behind not allowing cage supports going to the top of the differential?

Classes must end somewhere. The idea in Stock/Prepared is to have a cage that is mostly designed for safety while adding some overall chassis rigidity. In Mod, you are free to build a cage that essentially turns the car into a tube frame, tying all of the suspension mounting points into the cage.

You'll definitely have a hard time making this car Prepared legal. It's not impossible, but I would ask for some clarification as to exactly what you need to do to remove those rear bars and meet the rules requirements:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/115/312509619_063d14c8ab.jpg

looking forward to becoming the newest member of the IP crowd, and I read that the club is contemplating taking some of the goodies away? Aside from being totally disappointed (and peeved) that I just shot my budget to buy a built-out IP-legal car, I wonder -- is less power + Motons going to attract more people to BMWCCA or fewer? From the point of view of this neophyte, I gotta say, fewer.

This is a discussion...nothing official. This isn't even a discussion of proposed rules. There's nothing to be peeved about. Simply contribute to the discussion and provide your viewpoint so that the rules folks can take it into account in future years as they decide what changes, if any, need to be made to the rules. No reason to be disappointed or peeved at this stage in the game.

Not to derail the current discussion, but there is only one thing about the Stock rules that really bugs me: the fact that you can't add front camber plates. This is especially ridiculous when you're allowed to run R-comps in that class. That means destroying expensive track rubber. That means competing against guys who bend the rules by bending their shock towers. That means 99% of the cars you see at the upper HPDE levels will need to pull out an inexpensive (~$250) part that greatly improves the car's handling and significantly increases tire life.

What? When did this change and how did Holder sneak this by the rest of hte committee?!!?!? ; ) Of course I'm kidding and you are completely wrong. There is no rule that disallows camber plates.

Care to rephrase/rewrite this one for better discussion?

Getting back on topic, many of these rule changes seem to be about lowering the cost of entry. Running a spec tire (such as the RA-1 or even a good street tire) would greatly reduce costs. It's no fun running against a guy with a trailer full of Hoosiers when you're trying to stretch a set of RA-1's through an entire 3-day weekend. A spec tire (or a street tire) in the Stock class would go a very long way towards controlling costs. It seems to work well for SCCA World Challenge. I don't see why we need to run Hoosiers in CR Stock classes when Bill Auberlen, Boris Said, etc. are happy running RA-1's (and T1-S street tires before that).

It's not just about lowering the cost of entry, part of the idea is re-embracing the idea of prepared class being more like IT. The real problem here stems from the fact that there were several years of excellent development without the same amount of rules development. That's no ones fault in particular, it's just something that happened sorta quietly until it was a bit too late.

It is well known why the RA-1 will likely never be a spec tire in BMW CR. I am very much a proponent of a spec tire at least for stock class but possibly prepared as well if it was something well received. Personally I like the idea but I'm only one racer. I would be very much against a street tire though, that is just the dumbest thing to me. Again, my opinion.

One of the biggest reasons I wanted to see the proposed rules from last year showing the loss of cams and brakes was to spark a discussion on whether or not it was feasible. This forum is only one small percentage of the active racers. Another group over on the SIG felt very strongly that it was an excellent idea so there are certainly a lot of people involved altogether and on both sides. Excellent disucssion I must say, very interesting to see more people on the other side (vs what I saw on the SIG) with different points of view and opinions.

Cheers.

It is well known why the RA-1 will likely never be a spec tire in BMW CR. I am very much a proponent of a spec tire at least for stock class but possibly prepared as well if it was something well received. Personally I like the idea but I'm only one racer. I would be very much against a street tire though, that is just the dumbest thing to me. Again, my opinion.

Spec tires are tough. A) It's hard to find something to fit EVERY BMW ever made for Stock and Prepared classes. B) They don't really lower the costs of competing for wins very much, if at all based on my experience in two spec classes with spec tires. The World Challenge example used earlier by Emre proves my point...those guys aren't running on a single set of Toyo's all weekend.

And I am VERY much against a street tire. The LAST thing we need is to slow down the "slower" cars while the faster cars keep getting faster and faster. The speed disparity is already a huge issue....manageable, but still big.

It seems the BMW CR Race Schools are becoming pretty popular and are growing a lot. I'd find it interesting to poll those potentials to see where they think they fit into the existing program and what, if any, opinions they have on subjects like this. That would be very interesting data since it's these people that are the future/growth of the program. Maintaining current racers is always important too of course.

Spec tires are tough. A) It's hard to find something to fit EVERY BMW ever made for Stock and Prepared classes. B) They don't really lower the costs of competing for wins very much, if at all based on my experience in two spec classes with spec tires. The World Challenge example used earlier by Emre proves my point...those guys aren't running on a single set of Toyo's all weekend.

Agreed, essentially the size would be pretty much spec'd as well. I don't think that's a bad thing either though. As for cost, the way I see that it could reduce costs is that the level of tire usage proabably would not change too much, mostly for those who don't run multiple sticker sets in a weekend vs those who don't. But if the tires cost less, and for those multiple weekenders, last longer there is reduced cost. Plus I think for any idea that is supposed to reduce cost there are always going to be those who will spend the same amount they normally would. So ti's not about reducing their cost, they will control their cost simply by their budget.

But in general, there are still plenty of racers who would benefit from things like this because they are still gonna use the same set of tires for 2 weekends..or longer if possible. If the cost of entry in order to be competitive is lower this should entice new racers too. Not that we could use them but an RA-1 is certainly less sensitive to wear than a Hoosier...at least at the club level. Perhaps a Kumho or Yoke would be as well, I don't know.

And I am VERY much against a street tire. The LAST thing we need is to slow down the "slower" cars while the faster cars keep getting faster and faster. The speed disparity is already a huge issue....manageable, but still big.

Absolutely, I think it's a bad idea, IMO.

Cheers.

This is a discussion...nothing official. This isn't even a discussion of proposed rules. There's nothing to be peeved about. Simply contribute to the discussion and provide your viewpoint so that the rules folks can take it into account in future years as they decide what changes, if any, need to be made to the rules. No reason to be disappointed or peeved at this stage in the game.

You're right. Didn't mean to sound ornery. (What I'm really peeved about is the hole in the oil pan of my new motor....:( ) I guess what I was really trying to say is that consistency in the rules can create a degree of fairness as much as the rules themselves. I've gotten the impression that as long as I am committed, IP is an excellent place to begin full-on racing. I'm not sure the extent to which BMWCCA wants to attract new drivers/members, but I think IP is a great place for doing so. But I thnk the misperception among some weekend warriors re BMWCCA is that either the cars are very fast and very expensive or too stock and too slow, without realizing that something like an IP car can be a happy medium. If you do treat it as a possible focal point for bringing in newbies, then I think maintaining consistency in the rules is a good thing. Changing it up to keep the class interesting for the guys who have been racing in it a long time is understandable, but from the newbie's perspective the lack of predictability hurts, not to mention that it increases the cost of entry if you are buying a car that's already IP-prepared under outdated rules.

A) Where's the proof that IP cars are making 290 RWHP? I need to see those dynoes. That's a lot of power...certainly possible, but wow.

B) I bet the S54 will respond as well, if not better, than the S52 based on what I've seen from S54's so far.

Bryan, How much would you like to bet? Can't be done, period. BMW tweeked the S54 already. Remember they are both 3.2 liters. My best guess is the S54 can get to 310 HP at the wheels, up 10%, not the 35% some people have tweeked the S52.

I don't fault the people who have custom tuned the S52 to this level. More power to them. Just using the system that is in place to classify the cars they are no longer at even close to where they were classified.

Not that we could use them but an RA-1 is certainly less sensitive to wear than a Hoosier...at least at the club level. Perhaps a Kumho or Yoke would be as well, I don't know.

Can anyone help me out here? I thought I remember reading a GRM article in the last couple of years where they found that while the Hoosiers dropped off MORE speed from the best lap to their worst lap as they wore, they were STILL faster than the Toyo's at each point in their life cycle...i.e. the Toyo's stay consistently "slow" for a long period of time, while the Hoosiers drop off from being REALLY fast to only being sorta fast. The delta makes people think the Hoosiers are gone, when in fact they have plenty of fast laps left. In other words, the Hoosiers are still a better deal because at the end of XX heat cycles, they are still faster than Toyo's even though they are a lot slower than they were when new.

Am I just making this stuff up or am I remembering correctly? I haven't paid a lot of attention to R-comps in a long time.

Now, obviously you choose the slower, more consistent tire if you are choosing a spec tire in order to level the playing field as much as you can...but it might be something to consider for those who are currently running Toyo's and complaining about being slow compared to the Hoosier guys.

Can anyone help me out here? I thought I remember reading a GRM article in the last couple of years where they found that while the Hoosiers dropped off MORE speed from the best lap to their worst lap as they wore, they were STILL faster than the Toyo's at each point in their life cycle...i.e. the Toyo's stay consistently "slow" for a long period of time, while the Hoosiers drop off from being REALLY fast to only being sorta fast. The delta makes people think the Hoosiers are gone, when in fact they have plenty of fast laps left. In other words, the Hoosiers are still a better deal because at the end of XX heat cycles, they are still faster than Toyo's even though they are a lot slower than they were when new.

Am I just making this stuff up or am I remembering correctly? I haven't paid a lot of attention to R-comps in a long time.

Now, obviously you choose the slower, more consistent tire if you are choosing a spec tire in order to level the playing field as much as you can...but it might be something to consider for those who are currently running Toyo's and complaining about being slow compared to the Hoosier guys.

Hey Bryan,

That's a good point and I think that brings in a part of all of this that is never really discussed...the psychology of the racer. ; )

I don't know about the GRM article but I've seen some tire testing from them here and there but it's alway AutoX testing so not valid for RR to me. I'd assume they did RR testing too but I don't recall. Again, I'm talking about the club level here where I *think* it's still a smaller group who really gets the most out of a tire. Hell I could be wrong here too! ; )

Bryan, How much would you like to bet? Can't be done, period. BMW tweeked the S54 already. Remember they are both 3.2 liters. My best guess is the S54 can get to 310 HP at the wheels, up 10%, not the 35% some people have tweeked the S52.

I'm not really looking to make any bets...just trying to share what I've seen to this point with regards to S52's and S54's. All I know is that our S54 makes a LOT more power than stock with nothing more than a 1 point compression bump and headers. Sure, the compression bump can't be translated over to Prepared, but these motors just seem easy to make power with if you can tune them. They are both 3.2 liters, but that's where the comparison ends. Throttle bodies, rev limit, head flow, compression, etc, etc, etc...the S54 starts from a totally different place and none of those "improvements" can really be added to a S52 Prepared motor. Surely, if a bunch of club racers are able to get the S52 to make stock S54 type power with ALL of it's disadvantages to the S54, the S54 can make more power as well with similar amounts of development. How can the S54 be fully tweaked by BMW if it just makes the same power as a tweaked S52 even though it is a much better motor in so many ways?

Honest question: How many folks have really taken a stock S54 computer and gone to the dyno (and track) with cams, headers, and a huge CF intake to see how much power the car would make in Prepared form? How many sets of cams have been developed for this car? To this point, all of the Prepared S54 folks I know of are using "off-the-shelf" type setups and tuning, which is a far cry from what the fastest S52 guys are doing. The fastest S52 guys are analyzing data EVERY weekend and improving their tune as they go.

The S52 has been under development for YEARS...up until 2-3 years ago, 300 hp was the standard and thought to be the "limit" with cams, headers, tuning, etc. 4-5 years ago, no one would have thought Prepared S52's would be making the power they now. I guess I am willing to bet: I bet the power is there in a prepared legal S54 for those willing to invest the serious time and $$ required to find it. To this point, I'm not aware of any Prepared class racers that have spent the time and money to try.

Is there anyone who has friends who are watching your entry into CR, be it BMW CR or NASA or SCCA, that are also planning on entering? As future racers what do they think about various series prep levels, rules, cross over etc?

Disclaimer: BTW, I'm not asking in any official capacity anywhere in this thread, I'm discussing and participating as a licensed racer who is interested to hear what other racers think. This can be a touchy subject so I don't want people to think I'm personally, in any official capacity, on a fact finding mission.

Interesting discussion that provides some insight on where prepared was and is heading. Lots of great information. While Im in favor of long term rule stability, as we know some creep is inevitable.

That said, my car is now a fully built IP car wothout a cage (which will be added in a few weeks). My start in this driving direction/development direction is typical - DE contender for 7 years, drove a variety of chassis before focusing on the e36 M3 for the last 2. Now at the "A/Near Instructor" level, with the speeds I can now attain, with my current level of safety prep (4pt rollbar, fixed back seats, 6 pt harnesses, Hans) I do not feel adequately protected. That along with the John Engle incident crystalized my decision to cage the car.

As a result I made the concious decision to build the car to IP rules as that segment contains the biggest group of e36 M3s, allows for modification fun, and has also the biggest potential market in the event I ever sell the car.

The rules creep worked in my favor in allowing the x-brace. On the other hand, the rules, as is, leave me a lot of room to grow in the motor and suspension development area. Im also making the concious to build the car for reliability and cost containment by foregoing a lot of the allowed engine and suspension modifications.

For me, with my planned entry into club racing sometime next year, with my car as is, I dont anticipate being a class front runner or a backmarker. The car is still faster than I am. In the end I will be doing this for fun and cameraderie and thus will take the good with the bad. The rules as is will allow me to grow as a driver, allow me to have fun, protect me, and develop my car as the budget allows it.

In the end one has to decide at what level one wants to play with. Im sure there will be plenty of playmates in the middle to last third of the class.

The rules as is and in the future just allow for flexibility.

What? When did this change and how did Holder sneak this by the rest of hte committee?!!?!? ; ) Of course I'm kidding and you are completely wrong. There is no rule that disallows camber plates.

Care to rephrase/rewrite this one for better discussion?I was talking about STOCK class rules in response to a previous post asking why HPDE guys don't just go for Stock rather than jumping straight to Prepared. I'll admit that it's been a while (2-3 years) since I last looked at the Stock class rules...but I remember seeing camber plates specifically disallowed. And every J-Stock E30 M3, for example, I've seen at the track has been running OEM top mounts. Certainly that's not by choice!

If there's been a rules change in the meantime, then I apologize for the confusion.


It's not just about lowering the cost of entry, part of the idea is re-embracing the idea of prepared class being more like IT.Again, I was talking about the Stock class. A spec tire makes a lot of sense to me in a Stock class, where racing rubber is one of the biggest expenses. I honestly don't know why guys with Stock class cars need to run Hoosiers just to be competitive.


It is well known why the RA-1 will likely never be a spec tire in BMW CR. I am very much a proponent of a spec tire at least for stock class but possibly prepared as well if it was something well received. Personally I like the idea but I'm only one racer. I would be very much against a street tire though, that is just the dumbest thing to me. Again, my opinion.I guess I'm not in the loop, so I have no idea why the RA-1 wouldn't be a good choice as a spec tire. As for street tires, it's not the craziest idea in the world if a car is supposed to be Stock. Again, they ran street tires in SCCA World Challenge for many years...and those cars are far more "prepared" than any Stock class CR car.

Emre

And I am VERY much against a street tire. The LAST thing we need is to slow down the "slower" cars while the faster cars keep getting faster and faster. The speed disparity is already a huge issue....manageable, but still big.Good point. I hadn't considered that.

Emre

Also, I think keeping the BMW CCA CR mailing and discussion list essentially private (as opposed to an open forum like this one) is unproductive. It keeps non-racers in the dark.

Emre

I agree with everything else you said.

FYI - there is no such thing as an official "BMWCCA CR Mailing List". There is a list run by Filipo (sp?) that caters to the BMWCCA Club Racer, but it is not an official mailing list run by CR.

There are BMWCCA CR Forums at the BMWCCA CR website, but they are not as well populated as this forum. That is one of the reasons I participate on this forum.

I was talking about STOCK class rules in response to a previous post asking why HPDE guys don't just go for Stock rather than jumping straight to Prepared. I'll admit that it's been a while (2-3 years) since I last looked at the Stock class rules...but I remember seeing camber plates specifically disallowed. And every J-Stock E30 M3, for example, I've seen at the track has been running OEM top mounts. Certainly that's not by choice!
Emre

My E30 M3, while not a Stock class club racing car, utilizes Stock class compliant front camber plates. They are not adjustable "sliding" camber plates, but are in a fixed position. These plates, combined with offset OE mounts, provide me with ~2.5 degrees negative camber. If I wanted, I could fabricate similar fixed camber plates (allowed under Stock class rule-set) that would provide the class limit of negative 3.5 degrees. Your argument is moot, as the rules provide sufficient methods of achieving desired negative camber.

Christopher

I guess I'm not in the loop, so I have no idea why the RA-1 wouldn't be a good choice as a spec tire. As for street tires, it's not the craziest idea in the world if a car is supposed to be Stock. Again, they ran street tires in SCCA World Challenge for many years...and those cars are far more "prepared" than any Stock class CR car.

Tire Rack is the title sponsor and they don't sell Toyos.

Tire Rack is the title sponsor and they don't sell Toyos.

The do sell Toyo's. It's just that for various reasons, that are there own,Tire Rack does not carry the full line of Toyo Tires.

I was talking about STOCK class rules in response to a previous post asking why HPDE guys don't just go for Stock rather than jumping straight to Prepared. I'll admit that it's been a while (2-3 years) since I last looked at the Stock class rules...but I remember seeing camber plates specifically disallowed. And every J-Stock E30 M3, for example, I've seen at the track has been running OEM top mounts. Certainly that's not by choice!


Stock class cars are allowed fixed camber plates and have a limit of 3.5 deg negative camber on the front wheels. You probably didn't look hard enough as there likely was a fixed plate on top of the strut bearing. I've looked at all the cars at Mosport for the last two years and they all had them.

DE people more than likely have gone to an adjustable plate and hence why most jump into prepared when they're ready to race. My own DE car is closer to an IP car than it is to a stock class one other than all the expensive stuff like cams, diff, etc. I don't want to revert back to stock and there's not many I-stock cars to compete with anyway so I for one would like the takeaways to take place before I'm ready to dive into CR. :) However if they don't happen I'll be happy to run Mod and not worry about where I'm at compared to the top cars. I'd be happy to just be out there running with whomever happens to be next to me and hopefully not in the way of an in-class battle.

Carlos.

The do sell Toyo's. It's just that for various reasons, that are there own,Tire Rack does not carry the full line of Toyo Tires.

Hmmm...I thought they didn't carry any Toyos at all. Is it just not the competition tires?

Hmmm...I thought they carry any Toyos at all. Is it jsut not the competition tires?

They sell a pretty complete line of "OE Replacement Tires" for those cars and in those sizes that the cars were originally equipped. They don't sell any Toyo Dot-R tires as well as I know.

Hmmm...I thought they didn't carry any Toyos at all. Is it just not the competition tires?

They carry a limited supply Toyo replacements for passenger cars. No Toyo competition tires.

Please forgive me in advance as I did not read all the posts in this thread so far.
I've been club racing since 02 now, first in I stock, then IP and now JP.

I believe taking away anything major like cams from prepared would be a mistake. We need to find a way to revive the stock class, not make prepared more affordable to people who don't want to remove things from their cars to run stock.

Prepared is very popular for a reason, DON'T SCREW WITH A FORMULA THAT OBVIOUSLY WORKS.

Allow height adjustable suspension in stock and removal of the interior and you have the class everyone seems to want to turn prepared into more or less.

Allow height adjustable suspension in stock and removal of the interior and you have the class everyone seems to want to turn prepared into more or less.

Also a good point...the days of crossing over from Showroom Stock SCCA are pretty much gone. We aren't getting our racers from that venue and the cars only stay eligible for SS/Touring for a short time anyway. Perhaps Stock should be more like PCA Stock class, where it's an actual race car rather than a street car with a cage.

Honest question: How many folks have really taken a stock S54 computer and gone to the dyno (and track) with cams, headers, and a huge CF intake to see how much power the car would make in Prepared form? How many sets of cams have been developed for this car? To this point, all of the Prepared S54 folks I know of are using "off-the-shelf" type setups and tuning, which is a far cry from what the fastest S52 guys are doing. The fastest S52 guys are analyzing data EVERY weekend and improving their tune as they go.

And a great question... No S54 people have done it because it can't be done on OBD2 cars. Do you think that the CR officials thought that when they said it's OK to install a chip that the racers would be manipulating the chips at the track? Or, after each weekend to punch out more and more power? None of which can be done to the OBD2 cars. Maybe that is why a piggy back or aftermarket ECU is not allowed.

Here's something to ponder: In 2008 Grand Am is going to use a spec ECU for the BMWs. How about if BMW CCA CR allows all the current modifications but the chip has to off the shelf? Because the guy that can burn his own chips basically has a motec or aftermarket ECU.

BTW: this discussion is great.

Allow height adjustable suspension in stock and removal of the interior and you have the class everyone seems to want to turn prepared into more or less.

I am 100% with you, John, save for this final comment. I believe Stock classes should retain OE style strut inserts/springs. You can corner balance a car without height adjustable shock bodies, you just have to be creative. A blank check budget for OE style shocks and springs will still be many times less expensive than "good" Prepared legal equipment. Call me crazy, but I believe that the current class rules are written pretty damn well. Aside from some additional "clarity" under certain class rule-sets, the overall "theme" for the Stock, Prepared and Mod classes are well defined.

Christopher

Perhaps Stock should be more like PCA Stock class, where it's an actual race car rather than a street car with a cage.

Huh? The same PCA that only requires a roll BAR in stock classes?

Huh? The same PCA that only requires a roll BAR in stock classes?

Did I say anything about removing safety items? I was making a comparison, not saying our Stock class rules should come directly from the PCA book. Heck, I think PCA allows sphericals in stock. The point is just that perhaps it makes sense to make our Stock class into the class that everyone is talking about...a class of real race cars with real adjustable suspensions, etc, with very limited prep.

a class of real race cars with real adjustable suspensions, etc, with very limited prep.

I find these attributes to be mutually exclusive. ;)

Christopher

And a great question... No S54 people have done it because it can't be done on OBD2 cars.

OBD2 computers can be programmed...you can buy a pre-tuned ECU or software injector for your S54 (or even a E60 M5 or E92 335i) right now. In fact, it's easier than burning and replacing chips for OBD1 since there's no little chip to remove/replace. It's not as readily available to anyone and everyone right now who wants to do their own tuning, but neither was the ability to tune your own OBD1 chips back 2-3 seasons ago. As things progress, so will the power of the S54's. I'm pretty sure there are those who already have the ability to tune a S54 in the paddock...

I find these attributes to be mutually exclusive. ;)

A set of high adjustable coilovers can't fit into a limited prep class? SE36 has them. It's the first mod most folks do to their track cars.

I was talking about STOCK class rules in response to a previous post asking why HPDE guys don't just go for Stock rather than jumping straight to Prepared. I'll admit that it's been a while (2-3 years) since I last looked at the Stock class rules...but I remember seeing camber plates specifically disallowed. And every J-Stock E30 M3, for example, I've seen at the track has been running OEM top mounts. Certainly that's not by choice!

I'd have to look back into the 90's but to my knowledge there has never ever been a time where camber plates were not allowed in every class. J Stock M3's run crash mounts (offset for increased negative camber) in most cases, which are allowed, along with fixed camber plates. That has pretty much been the set up for as long as I can remember, back to 2000 at least. Pretty much any car I've seen can attain 3 deg or slighlty more which normally is fine for R comps.

If there's been a rules change in the meantime, then I apologize for the confusion.

The only rules change I'm aware of, agian without looking all the way back, was around 2001 or 2002 where there was a limit set for stock class...set to 3.5 deg. This is more than most cars can attain via compliant methods so for the most part it wasn't a limiter.


Again, I was talking about the Stock class. A spec tire makes a lot of sense to me in a Stock class, where racing rubber is one of the biggest expenses. I honestly don't know why guys with Stock class cars need to run Hoosiers just to be competitive.

Agreed.


I guess I'm not in the loop, so I have no idea why the RA-1 wouldn't be a good choice as a spec tire. As for street tires, it's not the craziest idea in the world if a car is supposed to be Stock. Again, they ran street tires in SCCA World Challenge for many years...and those cars are far more "prepared" than any Stock class CR car.

The Tire Rack is our title sponsor and they do not sell Toyo (only certain OEM replacement applications). There are reasons for all this, some of which I'm aware of, that TTR and Toyo do not work together. Thus, spec'ing a tire which our title sponsor does not sell probably isn't a good idea. That's that in a nutshell. It's been discussed on this forum many time so I thought it was more common knowledge, sorry, certainly nothing wrong with not knowing everything. ; ) I sure as hell don't!

OBD2 computers can be programmed...you can buy a pre-tuned ECU or software injector for your S54 (or even a E60 M5 or E92 335i) right now. In fact, it's easier than burning and replacing chips for OBD1 since there's no little chip to remove/replace. It's not as readily available to anyone and everyone right now who wants to do their own tuning, but neither was the ability to tune your own OBD1 chips back 2-3 seasons ago. As things progress, so will the power of the S54's. I'm pretty sure there are those who already have the ability to tune a S54 in the paddock...

I know it can be done, already have seen it. How about socketing a burnable chip into an OBD 2 ECU??

Some interesting thoughts. Maybe instead of taking away from Prepared we should think about loosening up Stock. I wonder how many folks would be negatively affected by making Stock look like Prepared "lite"? I wonder how many folks who are not racers actually make a conscious decision to enter CR at the Stock level?

Jay

Some interesting thoughts. Maybe instead of taking away from Prepared we should think about loosening up Stock. I wonder how many folks would be negatively affected by making Stock look like Prepared "lite"? I wonder how many folks who are not racers actually make a conscious decision to enter CR at the Stock level?
Jay

I like that idea (John and Jay). Take a stock class car, remove the interior, allow coilovers and camber plates and everything else remains as it currently is (except a new lower weight for the class/chassis). That would make me want to participate in such a class, I just sell off the big brakes and deal with stock brakes. :buttrock

Would there be a transition period/new name for such a class? Improved stock, how's that? :D

Carlos.

I like that idea (John and Jay). Take a stock class car, remove the interior, allow coilovers and camber plates and everything else remains as it currently is (except a new lower weight for the class/chassis). That would make me want to participate in such a class, I just sell off the big brakes and deal with stock brakes. :buttrock

Would there be a transition period/new name for such a class? Improved stock, how's that? :D

Carlos.

hey that sounds vaguely familiar....oh yeah...Post #18 :redspot

hey that sounds vaguely familiar....oh yeah...Post #18 :redspot

Alright Bruce you get credit also you just didn't spell it out like John did, I like improved stock over super stock though. Super stock makes it sound like the old J-super stock moniker. :stickoutt

Carlos.

Boil stock classes down to 2 stock classes... JS and H Stock - use wieght to equalize. Stock is dying because the DE guys are already past Stock. This class worked when cars were stock. Now everyone upgrades thier cars before they get out of the beginner group.

Change Prepared class where you don't allow for engine upgrades, but you can do suspension and gut the car but maybe no aero (similar to current Prepared, but more like the SCCA's IT class). This is now an IP Lite.

Current Prepared class is now called Modified (JM, IM, HM, etc) but allow lexon windshield (but no other lexon).

All current Mod cars go to SM (ASM, BSM, DSM, ect) and allow aftermaket gearboxes, all areo and in car adj swaybars. Or create a Super Duper mod class for the current SM car(s) and leave the MOd rules alone for this class.

Keep Spec E36

Then redu