Paging E30 gurus. Currently, the rules clearly establish that M3, verts and all non-US chassis are illegal. What isn’t so clear is whether there are other chassis that should be illegal because of some inherent advantage it might have even with the spec suspension/motor/driveline/weight/ABS. Are there any? Inquiry includes MY differences (eg. pre-87 cars)
E30 chassis that should NOT be legal?
Ranger
#2
“Should be”? Don’t borrow trouble.
Cars theoretically take on year of engine, but that’s kinda confusing. I think that’s just a means to take an '84, put in a later engine, ABS (and rear disk brakes?), and diff and race it. Few of us can be sure that we’re running the car’s original engine. That puts us in the silly situation of not knowing what the model year of our car is.
There’s certainly subtle differences between the year groups, not all of which RealOEM seems to get right. For example I had to modify '86 fenders a bit in order to get them to properly fit on my '87. But I don’t know that delving deeply into the issue of subtle differences in early cars is worth the trouble.
cosm3os
#3
I’m trying to propose a rule that is tighter. Currently, a strict reading of the rules prohibits the use of any chassis that isn’t a US 325i/is (see appendix A which purports to set out all legal chassis) although there are a lot of e cars and 318s and MY cars out there. Just trying to get the rule closer to the spirit of the rule that we’ve all been following.
Steve_D
#4
How do you read any “spirit” into this? It’s pretty clear.
9.3.2.1. Any BMW E30 car that was imported to the United States through a franchise BMW dealer, may be used in Spec E30 competition, if the Spec E30 approved engine and drive train have been installed.
Any non-M, 2wd, tintop E30 – as long as it has an M20B25/Getrag/3.73 drivetrain – sure looks legal to me.
If you think the chassis should have been born a 325i, feel free to interpret the rule more strictly than the language states. 
Ranger
#5
Come up with solid evidence that there are differences that people should care about. Then everyone can rant over minutia because we’re bored. Ultimately we might develop some limited consensus and request another dubious rule change like the vert ban.
How would we enforce a “no e model chassis” rule? Require the retention of one of the orginal fenders for the VIN stamping?
Don’t get me wrong, I sympathize. I’m the poster child about dreaming up little stuff to be concerned about. Just tell yourself that this kind of behavior is a hallmark of an active mind, and then go run a 10k, pump some iron, put some rounds down range, go to the local HS and leer at the cheerleaders, or whatever it is that you do.
cosm3os
#6
[quote=“Steve D” post=66991]How do you read any “spirit” into this? It’s pretty clear.
9.3.2.1. Any BMW E30 car that was imported to the United States through a franchise BMW dealer, may be used in Spec E30 competition, if the Spec E30 approved engine and drive train have been installed.
Any non-M, 2wd, tintop E30 – as long as it has an M20B25/Getrag/3.73 drivetrain – sure looks legal to me.
If you think the chassis should have been born a 325i, feel free to interpret the rule more strictly than the language states. ;)[/quote]
Ah, but that’s the engine swap rule. You have to look at the “Eligible Vehicles” rule first, which clearly states that only the US versions of the cars listed in Appendix A are eligible (and those happen to be all 87+ 325i/is). Heck, if you stick with the rule as we’ve all been practicing, you don’t even need the swap rule.
I agree that 9 sets out spirit we’ve all been talking about, but it contradicts 7.
Ranger, I don’t think there are any marked differences, but I’m not the expert that others are, so I threw it out there.
Ranger
#7
[quote=“cosm3os” post=66993][quote
Ranger, I don’t think there are any marked differences, but I’m not the expert that others are, so I threw it out there.[/quote]
Well, don’t do that.
It’s like when your wife puts on a new skirt and asks you “does this make me look fat?” Some types of questions just lead to needless contraversy.
After you’ve been around a couple more years you’ll see that we, as a community, will gladly fight and disagree over just about anything. I can’t hardly make it thru a week without some shithead disagreeing with me.
Steve_D
#8
[quote=“Ranger” post=66994]I can’t hardly make it thru a week without some shithead disagreeing with me.[/quote]Correct grammar would be “I can hardly make it through a week without some shithead disagreeing with me.”
cosm3os
#9
[quote=“Ranger” post=66994][quote=“cosm3os” post=66993][quote
Ranger, I don’t think there are any marked differences, but I’m not the expert that others are, so I threw it out there.[/quote]
Well, don’t do that.
It’s like when your wife puts on a new skirt and asks you “does this make me look fat?” Some types of questions just lead to needless contraversy.
After you’ve been around a couple more years you’ll see that we, as a community, will gladly fight and disagree over just about anything. I can’t hardly make it thru a week without some shithead disagreeing with me.[/quote]
Not exactly. The correct analogy would be to ask your wife, “Are you going to wear that?”
Ranger
#10
Good call. Sloppy joke construction on my part.
I had to write that line several times before I decided that it had just the right amount of “dry” to it to make folks wonder if I could really be serious. And you guys caught on immed. Dang, I’ve become too…predictable.
Ranger
#12
You’ve become a master baiter. I took it hook, line and sinker.[/quote]
Re. taking it hook line and sinker. Aw shucks, you say the nicest things.
Re. baiting. I just turned 50. Baiting isn’t what it once was. Assisted or otherwise.
Speedracer
#13
If there is really some concern, what were the year and models of the 2011 regional champs and the nationals top 5 cars. If a pattern exists, maybe there is something to this thought…
Steve_D
#14
I believe Grace and Palacio both have 1989 i/is chassis cars. I do too. Some fast guys have 1987 cars. I like small bumpers and lower rear wheel wells.
I can’t think of a single competitive car that started life as a early chassis (non-ABS and/or eta) car. Very few people start with one, wad it up and want to re-tub the car. Kyle is the exception.
This just isn’t something that needs brain cells burned on it. The convertible chassis was a bona fide concern. One showed up at Nationals, did well, and got sunsetted. If anyone wants to push the limits on an all-out early chassis build, I’ll donate a 1984 318i chassis to the cause.
JeffCal
#19
It is my opinion there is no inherent advantage (at least one that can be quantified) in one chassis over another. Granted there are minor differences as people have pointed out. If the car meets legal weight and has a legal driveline/suspension, etc. then let the car race. There are bigger fish to fry in the rule set. Once again, just an opinion. For the record my car is 90 325is, so about as vanilla as they come.
Fooshe
#20
Klye’s question is a good one. Steve D’s reply points out a common error of not looking at ALL the rules before coming to a conclusion, which I also did at first. The problem is that the rules are appear to show contradiction in the Appendix A and the chassis allowance wording and he is trying to clean it up; so kudos to Kyle!
As discussed, I don’t see a real advantage any chassis has over another other than the vert’s. That should not be allowed at all as there are CLEAR advantages of using that chassis.
However, the only real car I see having a possible advantage is the 318is slick top. There is a bit less weight at the top of the car, but a few more items you will have to change to get it where it needs to be. So there are a few more costs involved. At the end of the day, all the cars need to be the minimum weight, so I would say that in the interest of having a larger heard to pick from, I would only bad that vert’s and M3 models. E, ES,318IS…whatever. Let them build it and go racing. In the end, I don’t care what car you have, the softwear behind the wheel still has to drive it, and drive it well to win.
Just my .02