Possible vote allowed to install performance chips

#1

Can this somehow be added to the rules? or can it be voted on? Anybody in favor of this?

#2

No. I bought a car with a chip and removed it because of the rules. There are times when a higher red line could be helpful, but I think that’s all the chip gives you despite ridiculous claims of radically higher torque and horsepower (which I believe is horseshit). Even if you disagree with this assertion regarding power, Carter’s always maintained the attitude that we should avoid all spending money just to go equally faster. This arguement could be made about many after-market performance enhancements. There are other series that allow lots more tweaking if heavy modification is what appeals to you.

Sasha

#3

Question’s been asked and answered…try the search function

#4

SpecE30 isn’t a democracy.

Votes = Rules Creep

Rules Creep = (more) Expensive Racing

Besides, on a Spec engine, chips result, at best, in a 2HP/1-2ft-lb gain, and at worst, a 5HP/5-10ft-lb loss in performance. (Do a search.) Plus, higher redlines mean shorter engine lifespan.

#5

yeah, it’s a benevolent dictatorship :laugh:

sharkd wrote:

[quote]SpecE30 isn’t a democracy.

quote]

#6

sharkd wrote:

[quote]SpecE30 isn’t a democracy.

Votes = Rules Creep

Rules Creep = (more) Expensive Racing

Besides, on a Spec engine, chips result, at best, in a 2HP/1-2ft-lb gain, and at worst, a 5HP/5-10ft-lb loss in performance. (Do a search.) Plus, higher redlines mean shorter engine lifespan.[/quote]

You are wrong about HP/torque gains…see link and scroll down. By the way nice cars

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=500579&highlight=mark+chip

Man you guys are tough…just asking a simple question. Who actually makes the rules? and how do new ones get passed? A couple a years ago, I thought that they didn’t allow certain bushings, now it has opened up…how did this change?

#7

No. I like the stock chip rule, for a number or reasons.

  1. Easy to police
  2. No need to invest in a custom chip
  3. Also it will be harder to take advantage of other illegal mods
  4. lower redline and longer engine longevity
  5. debateble engine performance improvement

As someone who has raced a car of similiar speed to a spec E30 but also raced a HP and a CM car in BMWCCA I can tell you that the best races are the close ones and racing a faster car doesn’t necessarily mean more enjoyment. The chip will not bring any more "enjoyment" as long as you are racing against even cars you will have fun. Save the money you would spend on a chip or sell the one you have.

#8

My opionion is to stick with the stock engine ecu.

Adding a rule to allow chips equals more expensive racing.
If you want to go faster, then that person should move to a different class (ie gts…)

#9

bimmerfreaks wrote:

[quote]You are wrong about HP/torque gains…see link and scroll down. By the way nice cars

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=500579&highlight=mark+chip[/quote]

On the other hand, this link Cars Dyno’d at Summit contains statements by various SpecE30-ers with actual dyno tests – the dyno graph in the thread you linked looks suspiciously Photoshopped. And even if it is legit, the engine tested was heavily modified.

bimmerfreaks wrote:

Some of us have seen how expensive rules creep can be, and others have simply heard the horror stories from the veterans. The rules are set by series coordinator Carter Hunt and Mike Mills – they do take suggestions, but only if you qualify the reason for the change. So far, their rules have resulted in competitive, fast cars that keep the build cost low and are relatively neutral handling.

I know when you’re building your car, it’s very tempting to "pimp it out" as the ultimate race car, but trust me, the rules are the way they are for a reason. Set-up the car and wring it out a few times, if after you’ve finished your 4 Provisional races, you feel a change needs to be made for safety/reliability/competitiveness, you’ll have the proper perspective and experience for people to consider your viewpoint a valid one.

As for the suspension bushings rule change, I believe it had to do primarily with the longevity of the OEM bushings in a racing environment and the fact that the solid and delrin bushings are [not] much more [expensive] than the equivalent rubber Motorsport part. (edit: fixed that last statement)

#10

Thanks for your guys input, and I respect your views…I am in the process of building my spec e30 right now and didn’t know if I should bother chipping it or not, or if people had considered adding the use of any chip rule. Thanks again, and a big thanks for everyone being so helpful on the board.

#11

Beamerfreak - you’re right, this is a tough crowd. A couple of years ago when I first joined someone (not me) brought up the chip question & was told "don’t ask, CHIPS ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE ALLOWED!!". So I, being the PITA that I am, of course asked "why not?". Carter offered several reasons, to me the most convincing was that whereas there is very little info about how aftrermarket chips effect engine longevity, we do know that the m20 runs just fine with the stock chip. So, why not just stick with something that is known to be safe instead of taking the risk?

Ex36 wrote:

FYI - I’d bought a JC chip before deciding to build to the spec class, and found I actuall LOST ~2 whp! The extra rpm’s were nice in a couple spots, though.

Ex36 wrote:

This argument could actually be made about ALL after-market performance enhancements - including the ones that are allowed - and really doesn’t hold much water in my book. If it were applied consistently and universally we would all be on stock suspension, have our stock mufflers, stock interiors ("why should we all spend time removing interiors just to make our cars equally lighter?"), and we could also run the Toyo Proxes 4, which cost 1/2 as much as RA-1’s and have 3x the treadwear!! Why should we all spend more money to all have equally better tires? Plus I’m sure it would be more entertaining to watch us all out there sliding into each other on m&s tires.

Ex36 wrote:

[quote] There are other series that allow lots more tweaking if heavy modification is what appeals to you.

Sasha[/quote]

My last comment is that I think we could all stand to be a bit more appreciative of the ideas of others, and welcome friendly discussions about rules issues. After all, no set of rules written for anything have ever been perfect (anyone spent much time reading the Internal Revenue Code?). So why not discuss things that we may not find be 100% clear or 100% logical and consider improving the rules when deemed appropriate (coughcough* plastic covers behind headlights…coughcough*)?

Respectfully,

Steve

#12

oops - 2x post again. anyone know why that would keep happening?

#13

I don’t know - maybe because you have a neurological deficiency?
(just continuing the tough crowd theme :laugh: )

sdais wrote:

#14

from what I recall of Carter’s earlier statements, the rules are an attempt to strike a balance between creating a "real" racecar experience (e.g. more allowances that in a Stock class like stripping interior, grippier tires than street) but limiting those things that just make everyone go faster equally, or reduce reliability. It is all a judgement call though.

And I agree on the being friendly to new ideas attitude. I think most are, it’s just that terse, quickly done writing can come across as stern.
cheers,
bruce

sdais wrote:

[quote]

Ex36 wrote:

This argument could actually be made about ALL after-market performance enhancements - including the ones that are allowed - and really doesn’t hold much water in my book. If it were applied consistently and universally we would all be on stock suspension, have our stock mufflers, stock interiors ("why should we all spend time removing interiors just to make our cars equally lighter?"), and we could also run the Toyo Proxes 4, which cost 1/2 as much as RA-1’s and have 3x the treadwear!! Why should we all spend more money to all have equally better tires? Plus I’m sure it would be more entertaining to watch us all out there sliding into each other on m&s tires.

Ex36 wrote:

[quote] There are other series that allow lots more tweaking if heavy modification is what appeals to you.

Sasha[/quote]

My last comment is that I think we could all stand to be a bit more appreciative of the ideas of others, and welcome friendly discussions about rules issues. After all, no set of rules written for anything have ever been perfect (anyone spent much time reading the Internal Revenue Code?). So why not discuss things that we may not find be 100% clear or 100% logical and consider improving the rules when deemed appropriate (coughcough* plastic covers behind headlights…coughcough*)?

Respectfully,

Steve[/quote]

#15

sdais wrote:

I love the last comment as there are a few rules that I take some issue with.

Also, if I use the back button on the browser, it sometimes reloads the submission and doubles the post. I just click on the Forums link instead.

#16

leggwork wrote:

[quote]I don’t know - maybe because you have a neurological deficiency?
(just continuing the tough crowd theme :laugh: )

sdais wrote:

Hey, I arguably have many deficiencies, though neurological issues hadn’t popped up yet! Yet, I say!!

And I 100% understand and agree that it is a judgement call regarding where to draw the line regarding performance mods to the cars. I was trying to make specifically that point. However, the line chosen (and I’m not saying it is or is not the right point) should be defensible (and I’m not saying that the chosen point is not). Actually, I guess I’m not saying much so I’ll stop typing! Hee hee!!! :laugh:

#17

It isn’t a matter of spending more money to go faster. The SpecE30 components are low-cost and biggest-bang-for-the-buck. While a chip would be nice, does spending $300 on a chip to make the car marginally faster really make sense? Taking a stock E30 and doing some suspension and tire mods is probably all you can do to make the car fast and fun without spending an arm and a leg. Hell, the most expensive part of building an E30 is the cage and safety stuff. I just proved to myself the SE30 philosophy this past weekend. I put up a laptime that was only one second off my best time that was set when my E30 was running on components that cost me 2x that of SE30 components.

Carter and Mike are good guys who haven’t abused their power and that’s why their leadership makes SpecE30 work. Racing by democracy just sucks. Look at the SCCA. I would never try to race competitively in SCCA because one day, they may randomly apply some BS rule and screw me over.

I don’t think anyone is yelling at you. I too had similar questions when I started getting into SE30. I think the more seasoned guys are just a little grumpy since they’ve been answering the same question time and time again.

#18

sdais wrote:

Alright, I just got 2 email notifications for each of the last few posts. :blink:

Lance - I think the ‘canned’ answer (that I’ve been given once or twice on this board) is that you were likely simply driving better this weekend (ie more consistently closer to the limit) than you were when the car was setup for KP. Could’ve been the pressure from the 2 JS cars that you were holding off. (Yes, that’s right folks - holding off JS cars in a spec car!).

#19

traqrat wrote:

[quote]It isn’t a matter of spending more money to go faster. The SpecE30 components are low-cost and biggest-bang-for-the-buck. While a chip would be nice, does spending $300 on a chip to make the car marginally faster really make sense? Taking a stock E30 and doing some suspension and tire mods is probably all you can do to make the car fast and fun without spending an arm and a leg. Hell, the most expensive part of building an E30 is the cage and safety stuff. I just proved to myself the SE30 philosophy this past weekend. I put up a laptime that was only one second off my best time that was set when my E30 was running on components that cost me 2x that of SE30 components.

Carter and Mike are good guys who haven’t abused their power and that’s why their leadership makes SpecE30 work. Racing by democracy just sucks. Look at the SCCA. I would never try to race competitively in SCCA because one day, they may randomly apply some BS rule and screw me over.

I don’t think anyone is yelling at you. I too had similar questions when I started getting into SE30. I think the more seasoned guys are just a little grumpy since they’ve been answering the same question time and time again.[/quote]
Well said.

#20

When I reached the decision of building a dedicated track / race car I looked at a number of options including the various BMWCCA options, SCCA, and even PCA. The closest I could find in terms of rule stability, clarity of requirements, etc. was possibly the various 944 classes.

After doing nearly 2 years of DE’s with an E46 M3 (cash meet black hole) the budget nature of this series appeals to me as well as keeping the equipment close to parity so that when you win, lose, draw, etc. you do it on your driving skill not your checkbook or your mechanical sneakability.

I don’t agree or even understand where some of these rules came from (ie no basketweaves), but I respect the fact that they have stayed stable. Personally I try to imagine if I had a built car and something came up that required me to fork out more $$$ would = not a happy camper.

The biggest way to add money to racing is to mess with the engine, it isn’t glamorous but no chip and engine mods, keep things level and cheap. To benevolent dictatorships I say hurray, now can someone explain the basketweaves again. hahaha

my 2 cents, which is worth less than that.