PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 21 Dec 2017 01:29 PM by  snakebit8
Move E36 M3 to STX?
 115 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 6 << < 12345 > >>
Author Messages
Butt Dyno
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:414


--
21 Sep 2010 09:28 PM
Hank wrote:
cbailey wrote:

I find it marginally amusing when several people who don't run STX come out and say "STX is too slow" when they really mean, "I am driving too slow for STU but might feel better going slow in STX."

This is just flame bait and I should resist, but... You might have no idea who I am and to assume that "I am driving too slow for STU" is ridiculous. I understand that drivers in STX will come to the defense of cars in that class, but your assumptions are just silly.

http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf

http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf">Day 2 was dry for everyone, right?

Hank
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
21 Sep 2010 09:49 PM
Butt Dyno wrote:
Hank wrote:
cbailey wrote:

I find it marginally amusing when several people who don't run STX come out and say "STX is too slow" when they really mean, "I am driving too slow for STU but might feel better going slow in STX."

This is just flame bait and I should resist, but... You might have no idea who I am and to assume that "I am driving too slow for STU" is ridiculous. I understand that drivers in STX will come to the defense of cars in that class, but your assumptions are just silly.

http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf

http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf" mce_href="http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.scca.com/documents/resul...esults.pdf">Day 2 was dry for everyone, right?

Yes, it was dry.

StreetTireStock
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Sep 2010 06:30 AM

I'll throw this argument into the thread--

If ST is supposed to be the "base" class and the "slowest", and currently the Civic in ST trim driven by huge talent can do well or win in all of the other upper ST* classes, then I don't see how banning the base/slowest class car is helpful. While I do agree that like what is being tested with STR is having cars only being slotted into specific classes and not being able to jump classes is good for competition (but not if you have multiple codrivers that need a place to play).

If the base car/class is so fast, then I would automatically think that we are not being given enough allowances in the "faster" classes to actually make the times faster. I have no doubt in my mind that if Andy would have driven my car in STX that he would have gone faster than me, but not faster than his or any other Civic. I know there is a super-thread on Bimmerforums that the AWD cars should have even less tire/wheel than they currently have and the 2WD cars should get even more tire/wheel (specifically regarding STU), but what does that matter when you're getting beaten raw by a 2WD Civic on 225's...or heck 195's?

Unless it's a talent issue in STX and STU (which I do not think it's a problem, both classes had excellent drivers even if Andy had run ST), I say make STX and STU faster to match or surpass the base times of ST and STS if the intent of the heirarchy of classes was to be Base-Faster-Fastest. If not, lump us all together in one class and let us duke it out :)

Andy Hollis
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts:6197


--
22 Sep 2010 07:00 AM

Just a couple of comments, since my name is getting tossed about here.

1) One data point is not enough to draw any rational conclusions. It might be enough to get your attention, but further research is always needed.

2) Nats is a VERY unusual data point, in general. The huge amount of OPR on the racing surface changes lots of relative performance benchmarks. And different tires react differently to it than they do on a clean surface. Also, the way various people react to the pressures of running for a jacket vary widely.

3) The east course this year had several high risk areas, where significant time could be gained, but with little margin for error. Not everyone took maximum advantage of those areas, and many did but were rewarded with cones.

4) Neal is a fantastic driver, and coned away a run that was faster than mine on the east course (see #3). But Neal is also on record on other forums as saying that he's been a bit "off" this year, including Nats. Still, his east course scratch time does make a case for course dependency.

5) IMO, STX has not shown well at Nats since Fenter left the class. Put him back, in the same car, and I believe things change substantially.

6) It is no secret that the upcoming re-org proposal is based on subjective classing, rather than the formula-based setup we have now. STR was built this way from day one. So there will be no more up-classing. Problem solved.

7) And just to reign in expectations, while the term "re-org" is being bandied about, expect less change in car classings rather than more. Once the subjective structure is in place, it can certainly be tweaked going forward based on real data.

--Andy "not official, just one guy on a committee, yada, yada..."

jhunter
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Sep 2010 07:03 AM

I keep seeing this ST is base, and all the others "should" be faster. Who says? They are simply different classes, for different cars to play in. Being in a "higher" class, does not mean you are in a faster one. Look at ASP vs CSP this year. Winning time in CSP was around 3 seconds faster.

The allowances should be pretty much the same across the board for all of the ST classes. STX and STU are already allowed to have LSDs. What else should they be given?

Bronxbomber252
New Member
New Member
Posts:32


--
22 Sep 2010 07:07 AM

Id argue that since the 89si is lightyears faster than the rest of ST, and is obviously competitive in higher ST* classes. that it should be excluded from ST, this would speed up STX a little, and make ST more diverse....

for the record this is not an I class request... I have an STR S2000

Butt Dyno
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:414


--
22 Sep 2010 07:24 AM
Andy Hollis wrote:

6) It is no secret that the upcoming re-org proposal is based on subjective classing,

How is it no secret? Has anything been officially (Fastrack or otherwise) announced on the matter?

People speaking unofficially on forums (mostly you) has been my only source of information about the reorg. Everything else has been speculation as far as I know.

rp1
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:219


--
22 Sep 2010 07:36 AM

Andy Hollis wrote:
1) One data point is not enough to draw any rational conclusions. It might be enough to get your attention, but further research is always needed.

This can't be stressed enough, as every year we get the post-Nationals knee jerk.

Andy Hollis wrote:
2) Nats is a VERY unusual data point, in general. The huge amount of OPR on the racing surface changes lots of relative performance benchmarks. And different tires react differently to it than they do on a clean surface. Also, the way various people react to the pressures of running for a jacket vary widely.

As this is my second year running at Nationals, I don't have as much experience as most others at the Big Show, but this year it's really sunk in that though car prep. is important at Nationals, driver prep is about 1000x more important. Why is it that at local events I'm a second or so behind Bounds and Smith but when I get to Nationals I'm 2+ seconds back per day? Nationals shakes people.

Andy Hollis wrote:
3) The east course this year had several high risk areas, where significant time could be gained, but with little margin for error. Not everyone took maximum advantage of those areas, and many did but were rewarded with cones.

Could you elaborate more and learn me some fast driving, Andy? :)

The rest of the points are well founded as well, but they all lead into the same conclusions. When top STX drivers could have trophied (or very nearly trophied) in STU while driving an "off day" in a "lesser" E36, it's absurd to think the E36 M3 is too slow for STU. Does it take someone with the E36 experience of Bob Tunnel to win STU in an M3? I dunno. But the times don't lie and well driven M3s have nipped at the heels of the boost buggies despite their seemingly insurmountable advantages. I would fear that any class between STX and STU would create a Spec-M3 class at the National level. At the local and regional level, however, I would expect this class to flourish well and capture a lot of BMW CCA members into the ranks of the SCCA.
StreetTireStock
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Sep 2010 07:42 AM
jhunter wrote:

I keep seeing this ST is base, and all the others "should" be faster. Who says? They are simply different classes, for different cars to play in. Being in a "higher" class, does not mean you are in a faster one. Look at ASP vs CSP this year. Winning time in CSP was around 3 seconds faster.

The allowances should be pretty much the same across the board for all of the ST classes. STX and STU are already allowed to have LSDs. What else should they be given?

I do recall something about ASP having one day in the wet, but I was already on my long trip home before I got to watch them :)

Andy Hollis
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts:6197


--
22 Sep 2010 07:49 AM
Butt Dyno wrote:
Andy Hollis wrote:

6) It is no secret that the upcoming re-org proposal is based on subjective classing,

How is it no secret? Has anything been officially (Fastrack or otherwise) announced on the matter?

People speaking unofficially on forums (mostly you) has been my only source of information about the reorg. Everything else has been speculation as far as I know.

Nothing official, correct. But it was widely discussed during the STR feedback period. In fact, the final iteration of the STR proposal had this added:

"Note: Classing for STR will not be formula based, but will utilize a list of eligible vehicles. Cars *not* on this list are not eligible. However, as in all subjective classing, cars may be petitioned by the membership for inclusion and will be reviewed on a case by case basis."

It would make no sense to put an official comment in FastTrack on only a single element of the re-org proposal. But setting expectations when people start flying off the handle (this thread) will help when it does get released.

--Andy

tkm
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1055


--
22 Sep 2010 07:51 AM
Isn't the annual "E36 M3 to STX" thread a little early this year? Usually we don't see it until sometime in the winter.
Andy Hollis
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts:6197


--
22 Sep 2010 07:57 AM
rp1 wrote:

Andy Hollis wrote:
3) The east course this year had several high risk areas, where significant time could be gained, but with little margin for error. Not everyone took maximum advantage of those areas, and many did but were rewarded with cones.

Could you elaborate more and learn me some fast driving, Andy? :)

The opening four-cone offset slalom (after the chute) could be done w/o slowing down, *if* you were right on the marks with your steering inputs. Most people don't have much experience with offset slaloms, so they treat them like regular slaloms.

The second place was the "bus stop" right before the closing sweeper. Fast section coming in, fast section going out, so overslowing would kill your exit speed. Still many people got scared by being slightly late on inputs and then staring at that big back wall of cones.

[quote]

... I would expect this class to flourish well and capture a lot of BMW CCA members into the ranks of the SCCA.

I just have to comment on this.

IMO, SCCA will *never* make a dent in either BMWCCA or PCA members coming to SCCA events. It is not about classing. It is about "marque loyalty" as a club premise versus "sport loyalty". Different mentality. Different focus. Different culture.

--Andy

Chiketkd
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Sep 2010 08:02 AM
tkm wrote:
Isn't the annual "E36 M3 to STX" thread a little early this year? Usually we don't see it until sometime in the winter.
You know I was thinking that when I first clicked on this thread yesterday. I'd love to see the E36 M3 competitively classed, but STX isn't the place for it. The OP is trying to cut down the wrong tree...
Hank
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Sep 2010 08:24 AM

rp1 wrote:
The rest of the points are well founded as well, but they all lead into the same conclusions. When top STX drivers could have trophied (or very nearly trophied) in STU while driving an "off day" in a "lesser" E36, it's absurd to think the E36 M3 is too slow for STU. Does it take someone with the E36 experience of Bob Tunnel to win STU in an M3? I dunno. But the times don't lie and well driven M3s have nipped at the heels of the boost buggies despite their seemingly insurmountable advantages. I would fear that any class between STX and STU would create a Spec-M3 class at the National level. At the local and regional level, however, I would expect this class to flourish well and capture a lot of BMW CCA members into the ranks of the SCCA.

I will disagree that the M3 has a chance in STU, but then again it might be that there is a very large course and surface dependency. If there was a non-ProSolo event on concrete within a reasonable distance I would be willing to test it against the best in STU.

Hank
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Sep 2010 08:30 AM

Andy Hollis wrote:

[quote]

... I would expect this class to flourish well and capture a lot of BMW CCA members into the ranks of the SCCA.

I just have to comment on this.

IMO, SCCA will *never* make a dent in either BMWCCA or PCA members coming to SCCA events. It is not about classing. It is about "marque loyalty" as a club premise versus "sport loyalty". Different mentality. Different focus. Different culture.

--Andy

In general, I agree. Many of the BMWCCA guys have little interest in SCCA events and their points system doesn't map well to SCCA classes. In the NorthEast though, many of the fastest STU M3's are driven by SCCA guys. We just drive something else for the SCCA events.

rp1
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:219


--
22 Sep 2010 08:39 AM
Andy Hollis wrote:

I just have to comment on this.

IMO, SCCA will *never* make a dent in either BMWCCA or PCA members coming to SCCA events. It is not about classing. It is about "marque loyalty" as a club premise versus "sport loyalty". Different mentality. Different focus. Different culture.

--Andy

And after reading your post, I have to agree. However, Atlanta is just a strange place. We have a pretty active group that go between events as well as a BMW CCA autocrossing board that are very friendly with the ARSCCA SOLO Chair. As the general rule, I believe you are totally spot on, though.

The Nebulizer
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1819


--
22 Sep 2010 10:51 AM

justint5387 wrote:

I was working when STU ran at the 2010 nationals. None of the M3s were well driven, I can see seconds being gain with a top level driver.

As stated previously, the top M3s in 2010 were likely a couple seconds off what top level drivers could get. We drove "pretty well" - with room for improvement. Here are my runs (I welcome informed critiques - PM me):

East Course

West Course

rp1 wrote:
The rest of the points are well founded as well, but they all lead into the same conclusions. When top STX drivers could have trophied (or very nearly trophied) in STU while driving an "off day" in a "lesser" E36, it's absurd to think the E36 M3 is too slow for STU. Does it take someone with the E36 experience of Bob Tunnel to win STU in an M3? I dunno. But the times don't lie and well driven M3s have nipped at the heels of the boost buggies despite their seemingly insurmountable advantages. I would fear that any class between STX and STU would create a Spec-M3 class at the National level. At the local and regional level, however, I would expect this class to flourish well and capture a lot of BMW CCA members into the ranks of the SCCA.

Randall, you point to several results of non-Ms doing pretty well if put in STU. The presumption being an M3 is significantly faster than the non-M - which is of course true in stock form. But, from what we have discussed at bf.c the non-M is capable of huge power gains with proper tuning - to above stock M3 levels at 210rwhp. I can't speak for the e36 M3, but I know the e46 M3 is not capable of much power increase with ST tuning. Also, I understand the e36 M3 has more weight than the non-M e36. I am just wondering if your data is actually supporting what the original poster is saying in that maybe the non-M is really not that different from the e36 M3 when properly prepped for ST* (which BTW is not my point - I am in favor of a new class). Yes, there is a significant difference in stock form, but is that difference anywhere near as big in ST* trim?

I think suggesting the M3 would be overclassed in anything between STX and STU is not supported by any data. I'd say it is pure speculation.

Another (albeit single) datapoint that I think is pretty interesting, Christopher Mayfield drove an M3 in STU at the 2009 nationals and finished 29th (another SCR team built M3 like this year's 22nd place e36 M3). This year he switched to an Evo in SM and is the 2010 National Champion.

redwhale240
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:310


--
22 Sep 2010 10:55 AM
Thank you Andy for mentioning Fenter. He dominated STX in 2007 and beat ST handily. As for an M3 in STU does Bob Tunnel need to jump into the mix, I'm just sayin. As many names and facts we try to throw around to make accurate comarisons the planets need to align and the effort needs to be put in to have the best driver with the best set up under the same conditions to rule out any uncertainty. Just because an ST car won doesn't mean that STX doesn't have the potential to be faster. It already has been proven that the potential is there, somebody just needs to bring it out again.
rp1
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:219


--
22 Sep 2010 11:34 AM

The Nebulizer wrote:

Randall, you point to several results of non-Ms doing pretty well if put in STU. The presumption being an M3 is significantly faster than the non-M - which is of course true in stock form. But, from what we have discussed at bf.c the non-M is capable of huge power gains with proper tuning - to above stock M3 levels at 210rwhp. I can't speak for the e36 M3, but I know the e46 M3 is not capable of much power increase with ST tuning. Also, I understand the e36 M3 has more weight than the non-M e36. I am just wondering if your data is actually supporting what the original poster is saying in that maybe the non-M is really not that different from the e36 M3 when properly prepped for ST* (which BTW is not my point - I am in favor of a new class). Yes, there is a significant difference in stock form, but is that difference anywhere near as big in ST* trim?


I think suggesting the M3 would be overclassed in anything between STX and STU is not supported by any data. I'd say it is pure speculation.

I can attest that with bolt-ons, E36 M3s gain similar power. Intake, headers, UDPs, full exhaust and tuning will yield nearly 230-240HP to the wheels. You'll see the same differences in power and torque between the S50 and S52 engines. In the case of the M3s, though i don't have any solid data yet (working on it), I believe the 1995s were actually a bit lighter than 96+ cars. Though from the factory the 325is is lighter than the 328is, all the ST allowances create parity between the car (my car was 2800 flat with a 1/4 tank of gas and right around 2760 when the car starts to starve fuel - i'll try to find my picture).

As to your other point, in ST trim there's VERY FEW differences between the M and non-M. Once you replace all the suspension, the driveline (different engine, slightly different cooling pieces, heavier driveshaft and axles, iirc) is the only thing that remains truly different as well as some of the sound deadening, dashboard internals and trim pieces. The actual uni-body and sub-frames are all the same as far as I've been able to tell after being party to taking them both types of cars apart. They have the same tire / wheel clearance issues. You are still talking about a 150-200 lbs difference, as far as I can tell. There's a few M3s in the Atlanta area I'm going to try to bring by my sponsor's shop to get some solid numbers though.

As for my "speculation" - You cannot deny the overlapping of the performance of car and drivers between STX and STU. Look at the results. If you have cars and drivers that could trophy in a 325is/328is in STU, would it not make sense that if you put one of those drivers in an M3 in ST-between-X-and-U he'll be nipping at the heels of STU and you'll have complaints that "Class Slow is faster than Class Fast"? I personally would love to see more well prepared STU E36 M3s with great drivers running against the boost buggies at National Tours and if they just continue to languish, I'll concede. But not with the data points we have right now.

The Nebulizer wrote:

Another (albeit single) datapoint that I think is pretty interesting, Christopher Mayfield drove an M3 in STU at the 2009 nationals and finished 29th (another SCR team built M3 like this year's 22nd place e36 M3). This year he switched to an Evo in SM and is the 2010 National Champion.

I've been talking with Chris all year abut building up my car and he freely admits that a number of circumstances prevented him from doing well, no matter how well he drove (he had very old, worn AD07s). If you look at Mark Baer's car (Chris had a hand in setting this car up), you'll see that Mark trophied. Who's to say that this year wasn't Chris's "break-out" year? Like you said though, this is a single data point and I think Mark's data point is more significant than Chris's.

Chiketkd
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Sep 2010 12:39 PM

rp1 wrote:
They have the same tire / wheel clearance issues. You are still talking about a 150-200 lbs difference, as far as I can tell.

Randall,

The difference is actually less than 100lbs between cars. Using Edmunds.com as my source, I got the following data:

1995 325is/325i -- weight 3,087lbs -- 189hp/181tq

1996 328is/328i -- weight 3,120lbs -- 190hp/207tq

1995 M3 (3.0L) -- weight 3,175lbs -- 240hp/225tq

1996 M3 (3.2L) -- weight 3,175lbs -- 240hp/236tq

To verify my data go here: [url]http://www.edmunds.com/used/bmw/ind...;/url]

To the OP: Stock-vs-stock, the M3 has a 88# and 55# weight disadvantage vs the 325 and 328 respectively. All while having a 50hp advantage (and a 20-30tq advantage over the 328 and a 40-50+tq advanatge over the 325). I don't see any possible parity between the 325/328 vs M3. There's no reason a well set-up AND developed STU M3 should be slower than a STX 325/328. Especially when the cars have a similar wheelbase, width, etc.

You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 6 << < 12345 > >>


Vorshlag 88x31 Button Mooresport Button
Sunoco 88x31 Button
Woodhouse Motorsports SPS 88x31 Button
G-Loc Button

Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank



Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner