TurfBurn
New Member
Posts:
 |
| 23 Feb 2012 05:50 PM |
|
Hey all. I've been researching this one for a couple days and can not figure out what people say is the case versus what the rules say. On an M3 if you swap the left and right top hats (no modification to them or any mounting points) you pick up several degrees of camber. I can not find where in the stock rules that is disallowed, yet all the threads I can find historically indicate that it is not allowed for stock and pushes you in to ST classes. Anybody have reasoning or a rules quote that can help me understand this better?
Thanks in advance!! |
|
|
|
|
motoring
Advanced Member
Posts:842
|
| 23 Feb 2012 06:29 PM |
|
the solo rules are a set of allowances " if it doesn't say you can, you can't "
point to the part of the rules that says you can do that... since you don't seem to be able to find it, that is your answer. |
|
|
|
|
TurfBurn
New Member
Posts:
|
| 23 Feb 2012 06:34 PM |
|
Well yes and no. I understand/agree with what you are saying, but I think the new camber bolt rule may allow this now (probably unintentionally). Here is how I read it:
-- the new rule--
If offered by the manufacturer for a particular model and year, the
use of shims, special bolts, removal of material to enlarge mounting
holes, and similar methods are allowed and the resulting alignment
settings are permitted even if outside the normal specification or
range of specifications recommended by the manufacturer.
In my opinion use of the tophats by swapping is a "similar method" that results in settings outside of the recommendation of the manufacturer. I'm using something specific to the model and year that is specific to the mounting geometry that is not adding to the system or altering mounting points. So to me the rule specifically allows for it. |
|
|
|
|
motoring
Advanced Member
Posts:842
|
| 23 Feb 2012 06:38 PM |
|
Is there factory documentation for that use? |
|
|
|
|
TurfBurn
New Member
Posts:
|
| 23 Feb 2012 06:49 PM |
|
I think the issue/not legal may come from this:
Both the front and rear suspension may be adjusted through their
designed range of adjustment by use of factory adjustment arrangements
or by taking advantage of inherent manufacturing tolerances.
This encompasses both alignment and ride height parameters if such
adjustments are provided by the stock components and specified by
the factory as normal methods of adjustment.
with the "if such adjustments... specified by the factory as normal methods" being the key line.
|
|
|
|
|
TurfBurn
New Member
Posts:
|
| 23 Feb 2012 06:50 PM |
|
motoring wrote:
Is there factory documentation for that use?
That I don't know, and would agree is probably the key. I'm guessing no since no other E36 guys do it, but I'll have a conversation with my dealer techs anyway to see. |
|
|
|
|
snaponbob
Veteran Member
Posts:2831
|
| 23 Feb 2012 10:02 PM |
|
"Motoring" has it right on all counts. |
|
| Bob Buxbaum
STX E36 328
KC Region |
|
|
Patrick Washburn
Veteran Member
Posts:2107
|
| 24 Feb 2012 01:30 PM |
|
This has also been proven out in the protest shed. |
|
|
|
|
TurfBurn
New Member
Posts:
|
| 24 Feb 2012 01:35 PM |
|
Patrick Washburn wrote:
This has also been proven out in the protest shed.
That's good info to know too. I have some good dealer contacts so I'm going to dig through BMW's documentation on the off chance I can find something, but definitely sounds like the answer is the top hats have to be in the right spots. My only hope/assumption here is if the new rule opens it up based on some wording. Unlikely, but worth pursuing.
Appreciate the feedback though! |
|
|
|
|
John V
Veteran Member
Posts:1845
|
| 24 Feb 2012 05:52 PM |
|
There is no BMW authorized method to alter negative camber on the front of an E36 M3. Any year. Sorry. |
|
|
|
|
TurfBurn
New Member
Posts:
|
| 24 Feb 2012 06:34 PM |
|
That is incorrect now as their is an "offered" camber bolt that is now legal per the rule changes. I'm working the dealer to see if there is anything else as far as shims etc. I'll publish anything I find, but the fact is the rules have changed so I'm revisiting old ground to see what comes of it. |
|
|
|
|
TurfBurn
New Member
Posts:
|
| 28 Feb 2012 10:45 AM |
|
I talked with BMW tech's for a half hour this morning and didn't find anything new/usable. Just the camber bolt on the E36. E90's can remove the tab to take advantage of the play in the holes for the top hat, but nothing like that on the E36. So nothing new that anybody hasn't uncovered already as expected, just the camber bolt. |
|
|
|
|
The Nebulizer
Veteran Member
Posts:1718
|
| 28 Feb 2012 11:05 AM |
|
TurfBurn wrote:
I talked with BMW tech's for a half hour this morning and didn't find anything new/usable. Just the camber bolt on the E36. E90's can remove the tab to take advantage of the play in the holes for the top hat, but nothing like that on the E36. So nothing new that anybody hasn't uncovered already as expected, just the camber bolt.
e46 also has a camber bolt that presumably can be removed now too. |
|
|
|
|
John V
Veteran Member
Posts:1845
|
| 28 Feb 2012 11:20 AM |
|
The E46 camber pin in the upper plate is nothing new.
The E36 camber bolt doesn't buy you much camber. When I looked into it several years ago it was less than half a degree. |
|
|
|
|
TurfBurn
New Member
Posts:
|
| 28 Feb 2012 11:23 AM |
|
Yeah, .3 to .5 degrees is what I see quoted. Sadly that is arguably at least 30% more camber though, for about 2 dollars. I'll take it :). It's not even a real camber bolt, it is just a bolt without a fitted shank on it that allows you slight more play at the shock to hub interface. I had hoped to find out about shims or different top hats in their documentation but no such luck. |
|
|
|
|
Z3papa
Basic Member
Posts:380
|
| 28 Feb 2012 01:38 PM |
|
I have to wonder whether you are trying to cram the square peg into the round hole. Why not consider migrating to STU or even BSP where the outlook is more favorable this year, where suspension modifications which allow you to overcome the severe understeer are permitted, and still have a nice daily driver? |
|
|
|
|
Matthew Huizing
Advanced Member
Posts:990
|
| 28 Feb 2012 02:28 PM |
|
Z3papa wrote:
I have to wonder whether you are trying to cram the square peg into the round hole. Why not consider migrating to STU or even BSP where the outlook is more favorable this year, where suspension modifications which allow you to overcome the severe understeer are permitted, and still have a nice daily driver?
What about the new rear sway bar allowance in stock? |
|
|
|
|
TurfBurn
New Member
Posts:
|
| 28 Feb 2012 02:40 PM |
|
Z3papa wrote:
I have to wonder whether you are trying to cram the square peg into the round hole. Why not consider migrating to STU or even BSP where the outlook is more favorable this year, where suspension modifications which allow you to overcome the severe understeer are permitted, and still have a nice daily driver?
I have not had understeer issues at all on my E36 318 I raced up to this point. We'll see what the M3 does, but I'm hopeful I can achieve similar balance in my setup. My issue with the other classes is it becomes a very expensive Pandora's box very quickly (full exhaust, headers, chip, camber plates, springs, aftermarket bushings, rims, etc). I bought the M3 largely for collector reasons to hang on to as it is a very nice one. I feel running it in AutoX is a good way to enjoy the car and not modify it away from stock in any measurable way that will hurt it's value. I will run it 1-2 seasons probably and then get a true dedicated car for competitive reasons. I'm also running it this way in support of the RT classes as that is something I feel strongly about as well. So I have a mix of reasons and feel that it is a reasonable weapon to achieve those things within my budget and my goals. |
|
|
|
|
sirele
Basic Member
Posts:128
|
| 28 Feb 2012 02:40 PM |
|
Sorry to crash the party, but can anyone explain to me why an essential free (comes with the car) and easily reversable (bolt on) performance upgrade, can be prohibited by an organisation that provides the bases for an entry level motorsport and has declared increased participation as new main goal?
I might be wrong but I would think restricting the influence of anybody wallet size on the results, would be the way to go in order to attract more players. |
|
|
|
|
TurfBurn
New Member
Posts:
|
| 28 Feb 2012 02:42 PM |
|
Matthew Huizing wrote:
Z3papa wrote:
I have to wonder whether you are trying to cram the square peg into the round hole. Why not consider migrating to STU or even BSP where the outlook is more favorable this year, where suspension modifications which allow you to overcome the severe understeer are permitted, and still have a nice daily driver?
What about the new rear sway bar allowance in stock?
Well the new allowance lets you do one or the other. Based on everything I know from running my E36 318 and the E90 325i I will definitely stick with the front sway bar over the rear. If for some reason I find the handling dynamics are not what I"m looking for I'll go back to stock on the front to see how it affects it and maybe try a rear sway. I doubt that will be necessary, but is something I'm watching. |
|
|
|
|