Docstoc

ABS modules in Prepared

Document Sample
ABS modules in Prepared Powered By Docstoc
					2008 Rule Change Requests (Verbatims)

1 Prepared: Allow upgrade to latest OEM ABS components

Proposed rule change:
Allow older cars to upgrade ABS components to newer OEM BMW ABS systems. (e.g
E30 cars can upgrade to E36 M3 components)

Reason for request:
Older vehicles can upgrade to better account for larger brakes (larger heat sinks) and
higher performance tires.

Detailed explanation:
Current ABS systems are much more capable to adapting to changes in:
Brake upgrades (rotor size, pad material, caliper)
Available grip (larger tires, racing tires)
Suspension geometry and stiffness changes.

The current ABS system found on older BMWs (e.g. E30’s) was designed almost 25yrs
ago. The original ABS system, from computer (sampling, time, processing speed,
diagnostic capability) to ABS pump (valve actuation time), is not able to handle to
increased adhesion available from modern day tires (which have more grip than slicks
from even just 15yrs ago) or the use of larger brakes.

Currently, the rules allow for bigger brakes, and even non-M E36’s can upgrade to M
specific components since an E36 M3 can be classed in JP if there is an engine swap
involved. This is also an unfair advantage as the JP class which was intended for non
M-cars (exception being the E30 M3), is now becoming more populated with ex-E36
M3s with engine swaps.

Will Atkinson




2 Classification: adjust w/p ratio in Prepared to compensate for chassis
inequities

Performance adjustment in JP:

Proposed rule change:
Correct the hp/lbs ratio between E30 M3s and other newer vehicle types that benefit
from the use of the engine swap rule and newer engine developments.
Reason for request:
Suspension, brake and now engine power potential have/will relegate E30 M3 as non-
competitive in J class.

Detailed explanation:
E30 M3’s were specifically disallowed from upgrading from the AFM to a non-AFM (e.g.
MAF). While this was good reasoning maybe 5yrs ago, today the same cannot be said.

Shown below is the current “real-world” potential from engine modifications for a car in
JP. While E36 M3’s can engine swap down to JP and also are allowed to upgrade their
wiring (OBD-I) or their engine airflow measurement, E30 M3’s and other AFM equipped
cars are still tuned (i.e. limited) in engine performance resulting in a class imbalance
that did not exist in the last year or two.

                Prepared       Stock hp      Computed       Engine          Adjusted
                weight (lbs)                 lbs/hp         crank           lbs/hp
                                                            potential
                                                            (hp)
 E36 325        2900           189           15.98          270             10.74
 E30 M3         2624           192           14.23          230             11.41

Will Atkinson



3 Prepared: Eliminate Engine Swaps in Prepared

I propose that we move to eliminate engine swaps in Prepared. The provisions for
engine swaps are a cause for continual confusion, error and change.

We have allowed changes for E-36's to compensate for E-36 M chassis with non-M
engines. Now others, non-E36's are asking for similar provisions as they see this as
putting them at a disadvantage.

The philosophy of Prepared is that of the next step in preparation after Stock with more
suspension, some weight reduction and limited engine mods, but less than Modified
which is essentially unrestricted. The expense of Prepared due to the engine swap
provisions surely must have increased; certainly the complexity has for all involved.

Lets pick a date to phase out engine swaps, 2010, 2011. Swap cars can stay, no new
ones allowed. Log books must be annotated to verify chassis/engine combination at
cutoff date.

Mills
4 Classification: Factory Weights in Stock: Published Kerb weights etc.


Based upon what we discovered concerning the published "kerb" weights and the EU
standards I propose we specify in the classification appendix, the weight formulas and
that they will be used for each year and model independently and adjust the applicable
weights in the classification table accordingly.

For inclusion:
Weights for vehicles of a model years prior to 1992 will use the factory weight as the
stock class weight.

Weights for vehicles of a model years after 1991 will use the factory weight minus the
'one person' EU standard of 165lbs (75kg) for the stock class weight.
Vehicles of the same engineering designation (e.g. E36, E46), type (e. g. 325,
330, 318), configuration (e.g.. 2 door, 4 door, all wheel drive) and horsepower will be
weight equalized to the lowest of the model year factory weights.
Prepared class weights are calculated at 96% of the stock class weight.
The power to weight ratio is calculated using the stock class weight and the factory
horsepower rating.

Mills



5 Classification: Propose that the Stock/Prepared Classes be redefined:

G = Unused
H = Under 10.0
I = 10.00 to 12.49 (2.5)
J = 12.50 to 13.99 (1.5)
K = 14.00 to 16.49 (2.5)
L = 16.50 to 19.99 (3.5)
M = 20.00 and over


Creates one new class "G". Changes distribution to create more differentiation at the
more prevalent power to weights seen today.

Currently:

H = under 12.50

I = 12.50 to 13.99 (1.5)

J = 14.00 to 16.59 (2.6)
K = 16.60 to 18.99 (2.4)

L = 19.00 to 22.49 (3.5)

M = 22.50 and over

Mills



6 Prepared: Allow CF Inner Door Replacement Panels
From:         John G Paton (Member #284073 / License #756)

The BMWCCA Club Racing Rules Committee chose to unnecessarily restrict the
composition of the decorative inner door panels allowed on Prepared Class cars that
have cages that preclude the use of stock panels, but don’t intrude into the door cavity.

This was clearly not a safety change – unless our insurance carrier has decided that
Modified Class drivers are not worthy of the same level of protection as those in
Prepared. Modified Class competitors can run carbon fibre inner door panels with
reckless abandon.

This was clearly not in pursuit of “a reasonably level, class-based playing field for all
types of factory authorized or constructed BMW's” as envisioned in the Preface to the
Rules book. Prepared Class cars run to a minimum weight, so it can’t be the
deminimus difference in weight between a carbon fibre panel and a sheet of aluminum.
Equally tough case to be made for the aerodynamic advantage argument?

This rule change did nothing to promote the objectives of the program. It simply
penalized the hand full of Prepared Class racers that built their cars using carbon fibre
panels for these decorative inner panels, on the presumption that these helped their
cars meet the standard of Vehicle Appearance as outlined in General Rule #10.
 (Apparently the beat-up garbage can look of an SCCA aluminum door skin has an
appeal that we all missed!)

The Prepared Classes Rule E.1. of Section 7. Body/Chassis/Interior should be returned
to wording allowing any material that can perform the function. (Not a very high bar
since the factory panel is a slab of cardboard covered in vinyl. If we deem carbon fibre
unsafe in this application, it would have the added benefit of banning it from Modified
because any car with such panels would be automatically adjudged “unsafe”)

7 Procedures: Racing Bill of Rights
John Paton
The BMWCCA Club Racing Rules Committee takes on the unenviable task of updating
and improving the Rules Book every year without any directly stated objectives or
constraints. Just as the IRS felt compelled to adopt the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, I
believe that the BMW CCA Club Racing Program and its participants would benefit from
the adoption of a “BMW CCA Club Racers Bill of Rights”.

Stated quite simply, this Bill of Rights would establish legitimate objectives for rule
changes, and thereby protect racers from arbitrary and capricious rules changes that
don’t meet the high standards set by the program, and, as importantly, protect them
from cost outlays to make changes that have no bearing on the objectives of the
program.

In particular, I propose that rules changes should be required to fulfill at least one of the
following categories:

a)    Improved safety;
b)    Level the playing field for more competitive racing; or
c)    Promote sponsorship.

Any rules change that fails to meet at least one of these criteria is punitive on at least
some of the drivers in the program, and contributes nothing to the attainment of the
stated objectives of the program as enumerated in the Preface to the Rules. It should
be quashed.


8 New Class: E30 M3 Touring Car Class Proposal - See E30 M3TC Class
Write-up Addendum



From:   John G Paton (Member #284073 / License #756)

______________________________________________________________________
__

The E30 M3, once the backbone of the BMWCCA Club Racing series, is the most
successful model by any brand to race in the various Group A Touring Car
Championships throughout Europe and the rest of the world (including the German
DTM series). In its early homologized versions, the cars were required to race very
close to stock, which explains why the E30 M3 street version was developed to the high
competitive standard that was.

With the continuing strong participation of the model in JS and JP classes, coupled with
the steady decline of JS (the last of the “viable” Stock racing classes in the program),
there is a perfect opportunity to unite the cars into a single class with a relatively narrow
performance window. The proposed class was targeted at allowing these wonderful
cars to run in a configuration much closer to the factory’s intention for them, and to keep
the cost of participation tightly controlled. (The underlying assumption driving allowed
modifications is that we need to appeal to the Stock Class E30 M3 competitors who are
generally on tighter budgets, and Driver Ed participants who have often made modest
performance upgrades that unfortunately blow them out of the Stock class restrictions.
Prepared drivers are assumed to be generally more flexible in backing out some of their
Prepared Class upgrades to conform to a more competitive class.) The focus of the
rules package is to allow broad, cost-effective participation while letting competitors
develop the handling capabilities of their cars to Group A standards.

Most of the JS drivers canvassed are unwilling to make the jump to JP because of the
perceived cost to be competitive – radical cams, headers, throttle bodies, big brakes
and larger wheels and tires, etc. In fact, the benefit to the E30 M3 from many of these
upgrades is fairly small. The package out of the factory was so well developed for
competition, by simply reducing weight the car becomes a whole different animal. The
brakes are suddenly more than adequate, tire and brake pad wear is dramatically
reduced, and the car can be thrown around like a go-kart! It becomes a much more
affordable car to race.

By creating a class (NOT a Spec class) that dramatically reduces the ability to make
capital intensive upgrades like larger wheel diameter, big brakes and much of the
radical engine work, the cost for a Stock class competitor to move to the new, faster
class can be tightly reigned in. This class formulation enables JS participants to simply
remove weight from their cars to attain much of the performance advantages available
in the power-to-weight ratio department.


Informal discussions and straw votes of various E30 M3 competitors in JS, JP and even
DM have produced strong enthusiasm for the class. I have attached a proposed rules
package for the “E30 M3 Touring Class” developed through extensive conversations
with many of these E30 M3 drivers. (As would be expected, there are differences in
opinion as to how far the allowed preparation should go, particularly with respect to the
engine, based largely on the desire to use the car for double duty in another sanctioning
body’s series. We have tried to achieve a distinctly BMWCCA Club Racing balance
through modest engine upgrades, modest handling upgrades and tight cost controls.
(The use of EVO II clone pistons was chosen because of the difficulty and cost of
obtaining real factory replacements, and the mild cam package was chosen to get the
best result from these higher compression pistons.)


9 Classification: Mod Displacement


gentleman,
 could someone please look at the dissplacement limits for mod and arrange them to
make more sense. in particular BM is 1.5 liters while all the others are one half liter.
Also note there has NEVER been a real AM car with an engine over 5,000cc big. there
are only a handfull of v12 motors that over 5000 cc's . all the v8 s and the new v10 are
under 5000 cc. It has even been suggested that the current break from AM to BM was/is
a typo and was never sop[pose to be up to 5 liters. it was soposse to be up to 4.0.
  I also don't think that dissplacement only is a good way to make the classes,but that is
another can of worms,
thank you for time
Brendan Digel #112 black and blue BM
racer # 777



10 Prepared: Allow Mini Cooper rear wing Heights Above Roof-Deck

From Greg Vasileff, (onasled) Lic# 1432.
I'd like to see some type of rule change on rear wings of Mini Coopers. Running a rear
wing and keeping it lower then the roof line is quite hard to accomplish in the first place.
It seems to be just another disadvantage of actually racing a Mini S.
Personally I like to keep a Mini wing as low as possible, but to keep the entire wing
assembly lower then roofline gives little benefit, if any, to even running the wing. This
puts ALL other BMWs in the advantage over a Mini in utilizing wings to balance the car.
I am not looking at these wings to be standing 12" higher then roofline. I would though
like to have the leeway to have it about 3" over roofline. This will give Mini racers the
ability to at least get most of the leading edge of the wing at roof line and still have that
endplates stand higher.
We don't need a lot of downforce on the Mini, but we do need more on some tracks. But
the main reason to run a wing is to clean up the air that would otherwise just suck a Mini
into a vacuum.
I hope you will consider and pass this rule for the 09 season. I think it will also be a
great gesture to the Mini owners of the acceptance of this car into BMWCR.


11 SE36: Allowing E36M3 Front Control Arms in Spec E36 Class
From: mfraiser@embarqmail.com
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: proposed rule change for 2009
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:18:01 -0700

Greetings,
I would like to propose a rule change for consideration.
The sole intent of this proposed change is to apply a safety-related rule recommended
for all other classes.
The SE36 class should be allowed to use E36 M3 front control arms. All other classes
are strongly advised to use them where possible in the interest of safety. The rule
applies to all classes by flowing down from Stock and I think SE36 is the only class
disallowed.
Relevant portions of the current rules:
Stock Classes
3. Suspension
L. ... [W]ithout modification to the chassis, the component or the pickup points, E36 M3
front lower control arms ... are allowed.
In the interest of safety, it is strongly advised that this modification be made.
Spec E36 Class
3. Suspension
G. ... Front control arms must be unmodified stock parts. ...
Some form of the current verbiage in Stock Class, section 3, rule L should replace the
relevant text in Spec E36 Class, section 3, rule G.
regards,
Marty Frasier
license #1398




12a Stock: Removal of Flap in Fuel Filler Neck in all Classes
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: dmwhite@gmail.com
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: fuel filler necks
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:13:20 -0700


I would like to submit a rules change request.
The flap in the fuel filler neck should be able to be modified and/or
removed for safety reasons in ALL classes. The metal spring loaded flap
just inside the fuel neck is there to create back pressure in the tank so
that when the fuel gets to a certain level the back pressure shuts off the
gas station fuel pump. This same flap becomes a safety issue when dumping
gas with fuel jugs. 1. Most of the larger fuel spills I have seen at the
track are from the fuel jug hose not opening the trap door properly and the
fuel backs up and over flows which is dangerous. 2. With it removed, it is
much easier to see if and when the fuel level is getting full as the view
down the neck is not obstructed by the plate and trap door hole that is
filled with a hose. 3. We are all governed by a 5 minute pit stop, so there
is no actual competitive advantage gained by such modification. 4. We are
allowed to use fuel cells in stock and prepared which can fill even faster
than a car with a modified fuel filler neck, but that same car is also
governed by the 5 minute pit stop.
I truly think that in the interest of safety this modification should be
allowed and even recommended to all cars in all classes. The cost is not a
real factor as the modification can be done in an hour or less, and for the
DIY type, it is free.
Thank you for your careful consideration.
David White
12b Stock: Removal of Fuel Flap in Filler Neck in all Classes
-Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: smtholdkitt@aol.com
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Make fuel filler neck 'gutting' legal in all classes
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:55:03 -0700

Greg Smith- JP
Racer #1403

I would like to be able to open up the fuel filler neck by 'gutting'/removing limitations
such as the fuel filler neck 'flapper' which restricts the size hose you can use to fill the
car during an enduro. I must fill my car up every ~45 minutes to prevent fuel starvation
and also to make minimum weight. This makes the 5 minute pit stops very rushed(and
when you're rushed you can forget things... like safety items). If we were able to open
up the filler neck we would be able to refuel quicker and focus more on getting back into
the car 100% strapped in. Less time spent fueling would also seems safer for the fueler,
fireman, and car. People with fuel cells are not restrained by this as there's no limit to
their fuel cell filler diameter opening. They can refill in a matter of seconds where as
stock fuel tanks can take several minutes to fill 4-5 gallons. This is more of a safety
issue than anything in my opinion.

Thanks,
Greg Smith
JP
#1403

12c Stock: Removal of Flap in Filler Neck in all Classes

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: brian.beckett@verizon.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rule request
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 07:05:55 -0700


I propose adding a rule that allows the gutting the "flapper" out of
fuel filler necks.
Since it is legal to install a fuel cell with no such limiter in stock
class people who maintain the stock tank should be allowed to remove the
"flapper" to ease fueling.
Brian Beckett
#496JP
13 Smod: Alternate Material roof in Super Mod
Phil Sansossio
Lic # 682

Can we allow Aternate material roofs in Super Mod on any chassis?

14 Smod: Up for interpretation???

Also, can the wording "improper alignment of body panels (ie- closing fender to hood
gaps, shimming front bumper) is not allowed" in stock and prepared?

Thank you


15 Prepared: Suggestion that current Prepared Class rules (GCR) Remain
intact – i.e. no back to stock implementation.

From: Denis.Budniewski@McKinney.com
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com

Subject: 2009 Rules Change
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:25:45 -0700

I would like to convey my thoughts regarding the current prepared class rules. As many
of you know there have been numerous suggestions posted on Bimmerforums calling
for significant changes to be implemented to either lessen costs to build a competitive
prepared car or to make prepared cars less competitive to modified cars.
I would be strongly against making changes to the current prepared class rules and
suggest that the current rules be continued to create stability in the program. Significant
changes either next year or even phased in, would penalize those of us who have built
our cars or those who have spent years methodically upgrading their cars to one day
compete in BMW CR to the current GCR’s.
The first issue raised is that the costs to build a prepared car are too high. If you build to
the fullest extent of the GCR’s – yes, building a front running prepared car is expensive.
If you look at the I and J prepared fields at the larger racing events or if you look at the
new prepared cars that are being built – the numbers continue to grow and indicate that
the costs to entered prepared racing aren’t a barrier. Continuity creates stability and
stability creates predictability – predictability allows a racer or future racer to plan his/her
path to building their respective car. If the GCR’s become a moving target (even via a
phased in approach), costs will increase substantially to either retrofit or backout
modifications already made to both current racers and future club racers. I also fully
expect that many future racers would give up their pursuit of club racing if the rules
changed substantially.
While prepared cars have proven to be faster on many occasions to modified cars, I
urge you to take a close look at the specific situations. If you compare them on an
apples to apples basis, have the cars been modified to the fullest extent of the GCR’s
for their respective classes? Are front running modified racers being beat by front
running prepared racers or are mid-pack modified racers being beat by front running
prepared racers? Are there differences in the respective racecraft between those
racers, etc.?
I want to keep this short and hopefully have made my case for stability in prepared rules
for the future, however I would be happy to elaborate further at any time – just say the
word.
Thank you for all your efforts and consideration.
Best regards,
Denis


16a Stock: Allow Interior Removal

Subject: IS rule changes
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:09:02 -0700

I request that stock classes be allowed the same interior modifications as prepared
classes. I installed a fire system this winter per CR rules, ashamed that I had not done
so earlier. However, I do not understand the logic of concern re fire safety when I am
asked to sit on 40-50 lbs of highly flamable and noxious gas producing carpet,
hydrocarbon insulation, styrofoam and plastics. I do not understand why it is ok to
remove some of these materials from the drivers side and not the whole interior.
Stock classes should be reliable and less expensive for entry level racers and reflect
"stock" engine and suspension performance. Safety preparation should be the same as
prepared classes. I would suggest Grand Am ST class as a comparable, not bolt in
cage stock class from the last century where the issue was to be able to use the vehicle
as a daily driver. BMWCCA CR appears to have had a drop in attendance in the last
few years, with the cost of gas etc there will be further pressure to decrease attendence.
I believe improving stock classes in this manner will help in the transition from HPDEs to
club racing. I personally know of three friends considering IS in the SA region, this issue
(and rollcage rules to + prepared) will be fundamental in making their decision to enter
BMWCCA CR or other venues.
Lynn Cochran MD
BMWCCA CR 195 IS

And……….

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: jlcmd81@hotmail.com
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject:
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 08:19:09 -0700
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} I respectfully propose two rule changes.

1) Change interior preparation and roll cage specifications in stock classes to equal
prepared class rules.

I believe stock class is underutilized as a entry level class, these changes would make
the stock class cars safer and would make easier the transition from HPDE to
BMWCCA CR. It would allow some to move into prepared class in a seamless manner.
All would help promote participation in BMWCCA CR.
Was it the intent of stock class to allow a minimally prepped daily driver to be driven to
and from the track to minimize cost? This is a relic of the SCCA rule book from the last
century.
Do we have any racers that use their car with a fully welded in cage without race shells?
Does anyone use this as a street car?
Should a stock class car be any less safely prepped than a prepared class car?
Can a cage designed for maximum driver protection be installed with the interior intact?
Is it reasonable to place a fully plumbed fire system in a car that has 50-75 of highly
flammable and toxic fume producing hydrocarbons in the interior?
Does removing the driver side carpet and insulation and leaving 3/4 of the incendiary
components in place allow any increased measure of safety?
If a racer should be able to exit a prepared car in 10 seconds should we demand a
stock class driver to exit in 2.5 seconds?
Is there anything within the "spirit of club racing" that supercedes safety?
Stock class should refect stock performance, reliability and lower cost, not stock
appearance or safety.

Lynn Cochran MD
BMWCCA CR 195 IS


16b Stock: Allow interior removal in Stock
Subject: Rules Change Proposal
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:31:43 -0700

.ExternalClass p.EC_MsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.EC_MsoNormal, .ExternalClass
div.EC_MsoNormal {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-
serif';} .ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-
decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass a:visited, .ExternalClass
span.EC_MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass
p.EC_MsoListParagraph, .ExternalClass li.EC_MsoListParagraph, .ExternalClass
div.EC_MsoListParagraph {margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-
bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';} .ExternalClass
span.EC_EmailStyle17 {font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:windowtext;} .ExternalClass
.EC_MsoChpDefault {;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in;} .ExternalClass
div.EC_Section1 {page:Section1;} .ExternalClass ol {margin-bottom:0in;} .ExternalClass
ul {margin-bottom:0in;}
Participation in Stock Class, with the exception of J-Stock, is virtually non-existent.
[By requiring new budget-minded Stock-Class participants to install (a) right-side nets,
(b) fire-suppression systems, (c) welded-in cages, and (d) electrical cut-off switches in
what is essentially a street car, but not allow performance enhancements, is not an
attractive option to prospective participants as it essentially makes the car’s interior
unusable for road use yet leaves the car non-competitive for track use. The obvious
answer is, of course, to run in Prepared Class which solves the performance issue but
is also significantly more costly.]
In an effort to increase Stock Class participation from new racers, with a focus on
advanced driver’s school participants, and given recent safety enhancements now
requiring the implementation of (a) right-side nets, (b) fire-suppression systems, (c)
welded-in cages, and (d) electrical cut-off switches which, in the aggregate, may (1)
result in modifications to the Stock Class vehicle’s interior not specifically addressed in
the current rules, and (2) result in the Stock Class becoming an even less-attractive
venue for new participants, I hereby propose the following changes:



1) Allow Stock Class vehicles the option to install a proper 8-pt welded cage including
the ability to tie cage to rear shock towers allowing added protection for stock fuel tank.
2) Allow Stock Class vehicles the option to remove any and all interior components and
trim pieces (as currently allowed in Prepared Class) in order to accommodate the
proper installation a) right-side nets, (b) fire-suppression systems, and (c) welded-in
cages, however, minimum weight requirements will be maintained.
Thanks for the consideration,
Rob Jackowitz


16c Stock: Allow interior removal
From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: X-IMail-SPAM-Connection> Rules change proposal EH12
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:19:39 -0700


Here's a thought I had -
Mod - leave alone
Prepared - leave alone. (Yup.)

Stock - allow stock class to ditch the interior and build the cage to the
same rules as prepared. No interior, no touchy the motor or driveline, and
no spherical bearings allowed. Also change the class weight requirements to
include the diriver, instead of just the car.
Now you've made stock class lighter, and hence a little faster, and people
can build a cage once. That may be easier than allowing this and that in
stock and taking away this that and the other thing in prepared over x y or
z years.
Eric Heinrich
JS10
Lic#940



17a SE36: Sedans removal of decorative panels rear doors w/o replacement
with alum panels

2. Current rules also state that the decorative panels on the rear doors of 4 door cars
can be replaced with 0.060" alum panels. The request is to allow removal of the
decorative panels on the rear doors without having to replace them with 0.060" alum
panels. As the window glass on the rear doors are always up, I hope the request will not
compromise the safety of the driver.
Thanks a lot,
Vivek Govindapillai



17b SE36: Sedans removal of decorative panels rear doors w/o
replacement with alum panels


From: johnmdanskin@gmail.com
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: spece36 sedan rear door panel and window controls removal
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:50:20 -0700

Hi, My racer number is 1423.

I'd like to propose that for spece36 sedans (325is), we be allowed to remove the rear
door panel and window controls, with glass fixed up.
This would help sedans lose a little of the weight penalty we have relative to the coupes,
and get to min-weight a little more easily.

I believe that I am not the only person requesting this change.

thanks!
john
18 New Class: Create Prepared Lite Stock Class (w lightened interiors –
stock engines)
Subject: Revive STOCK CLASS
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:29:22 -0700

I would like to submit a rules change that is a little more general at the moment, more of
a paradigm change for the STOCK Class.

The organization has since banned the use of Bolt-in cages for any new car that is
coming into BMWCCA Club Racing, which I think is GREAT and I support fully. But you
have to think of the reprocussions of this rule change, as I have seen it being an (albeit
infrequent) IS racer. We have a large barrier of entry to one of the most popular DE
Cars on Track, the M3 (e46 or e36), for there is now stock class, it is dead, and it should
not be - I don't think it is in the spirit of club racing to maintain a class that is dying if not
already dead... Stock Class shoud be an enticing opportunity to lure in DE-drivers into
ClubRacing.

In order for any new logbooks to be issued into STOCK class, a racer will have to
completely removed the lower half of his/her interior to weld in a cage, then put the
interior back in... of which I do not believe a single individual will ever do on the basis
that if they want to graduate up the 'class-ladder' to IP, they would have to cut out their
existing cage to then be able to take advantage of the rules as they are written for
Prepared Class. With this in mind I believe we have killed STOCK class and we will not
see any new logbooks being issued for this class. Therefore "Prepared-Lite" should
become the STOCK CLASS (Light weight, no power mods) with a chassis, cage, and
basic safety equipment that will facilitate classing-up later.

I think it will be beneficial to the club to open up and allow for Prepared-Lite to become
the STOCK CLASS because this knocks down the barrier of entry into BMWCCA Club
Racing. I reasonably believe that you are getting no new Stock-Cars in the program, so
that means the 'lowest class' for an e36M3 (of which there are BOAT-LOADS of at any
DE) is IP, which in order to become comptetitive requires a huge budget. Don't take
away allowed-modification from Prepared, but rather, open up the rules in STOCK
CLASS so that we can get new racers liscensed, on the track racing, and developing
the committed root-structure of all the participants and volunteers. Again, I suggest P-
Lite should become STOCK CLASS now.

My motivation is suggesting this to you is for the benefit and longevity of the club. I hate
to see a continued loss in racers, if we aren't growing we are dying... until then, I am re-
caging my car and will be running IP with a Stock Motor - from the air filter to the tip of
the exhaust... and I will get my butt kicked, but that is fine, at least I will be much safer,
and hopefully I *might* find someone to play with out there. ... and you know what, I
know I am not alone. I would be happier to discuss specific rules suggestions if you
would like to discuss further.

Good Luck and I look forward to seeing the resulting changes in the near future!
Respectfully submitted,

Chris Warp
IS - no wait - soon to be IP#911


19a SE36: Allow 3.91 Diff


Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: krause13@pacbell.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rules
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:35:43 -0700



Rules Comm.-

I'd like to see the 3.91 diff. retained for the Spec E36 class.

Chuck Krause
Lic. # 1343

19b SE36: Allow 3.91


would like to formally request a couple of rule changes for SE36.
I would 100% prefer retaining the 3.91 differential. I already have the 3.15 sitting in the
garage, but I just don't want to put it in. So much in fact that I'm questioning my
commitment to SE36 for '09 because of it. Moving to the 3.15, low horsepower, and
possibly sticking with the A048's just makes me cringe. I may consider changing to JP,
because of that. I currently have not run into the gear limitation problem with the 3.91
(Roebling, Road Atlanta, Barber, VIR, CMP).
Christopher Wadle
License #1313
Car #74

19c SE36: Allow 3.91
Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: tsmithelectric@gmail.com
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: 3.91 Diff in SE36
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:42:32 -0700
I would like to suggest that the 3.91 diff to stay legal. My opinion is that the 3.91 is not
only the best difff for the car but the best diff for the class.. Please Please reconsider
the 3.15 diff... I'm not the only racer that feels this way. the 3.91 diff rocks... at all
tracks. I've raced Mid O, Lime Rock, Road Atlanta, Watkins Glenn, Roebling Road,
Nelsons Ledges and Vir the past year and the 3.91 was great at these tracks.
  I Would like to finish by kissing your butts a little (lets call it brownie points) :=). I
love BMW Club racing. Thank You everyone that makes it happen....
Thank You
Tim Smith SE36#22
Lisc #1327


20a Stock: Allow Prepared Level Cages

From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: X-IMail-SPAM-Connection> Rules change proposal EH12
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:19:39 -0700


Here's a thought I had -
Mod - leave alone
Prepared - leave alone. (Yup.)

Stock - allow stock class to ditch the interior and build the cage to the
same rules as prepared. No interior, no touchy the motor or driveline, and
no spherical bearings allowed. Also change the class weight requirements to
include the diriver, instead of just the car.
Now you've made stock class lighter, and hence a little faster, and people
can build a cage once. That may be easier than allowing this and that in
stock and taking away this that and the other thing in prepared over x y or
z years.
Eric Heinrich
JS10
Lic#940
And…

Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rules change proposal EH8
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:04:42 -0700
In short: allow for a single set of cage construction rules for stock and
prepared.
------------------------
Considering the abundance of low cost E36 M3's available, we really should
have many more racers especially in IS.
Stock class should be the lowest cost of entry - add a cage and safety gear,
and some stiff springs shocks and sway bars.
If a stock class cage is built, when going to prepared the cage has a gap of
a few inches from the roof when you remove the headliner, and the rear bars
don't go past the passenger compartment. Nobody is going to want to change
their cage after it's been built.
---------------------------
Safety, Section 3,
As written:
BMW CCA Club Racing Rules V13.3.2 - 3/24/2008
Page 16 of 139
A.
Cage tubing cannot be welded or bolted to the sides or roof and cannot be
attached to stiffening devices in trunk or engine compartment. NOTE: Stock
class car cages may NOT include braces to the rear shock towers. The few
cars that were approved with this configuration will be grandfathered and
allowed to remain in Stock IF they submit documentation in writing to the
National Technical Steward (NTS) including copies of log books, etc. proving
they had been authorized this construction for Stock class. The NTS will
respond in writing; such authorization must remain in the car's logbook.
Without such documentation, the car will compete in Prepared classes.
B.
PREPARED and Spec E36 classes - Main hoop braces may be mounted to the frame
or chassis (rear shock mounts, shock towers or accessible frame rails). Such
rear braces may pass through any rear bulkhead or panel separating the
driver/passenger compartment from the trunk/cargo area/fuel tank/fuel cell
area, provided the bulkhead or panel is sealed around said cage braces.
------------
I propose making 2 changes to the cage rules for stock, so people can build
a proper cage once, that will allow them to easily move up in preparation
level as they desire without needing to change aspects of their cage. (or
thinking they need/should)
So part 1 of the change would be to add Stock to paragraph B above and get
rid of paragraph A.
Part 2 would be to allow headliners in stock to be cut or removed in part or
full to allow for minimal cage to roof clearance.
I am not proposing allowing the removal of other interior panels as required
in stock class rules, just the headliner.
---------
Eric Heinrich
JS 10
Lic#940

20b Stock: Allow Prepared Level Cages
Subject: Rules Change Proposal
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:31:43 -0700

.ExternalClass p.EC_MsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.EC_MsoNormal, .ExternalClass
div.EC_MsoNormal {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-
serif';} .ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-
decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass a:visited, .ExternalClass
span.EC_MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass
p.EC_MsoListParagraph, .ExternalClass li.EC_MsoListParagraph, .ExternalClass
div.EC_MsoListParagraph {margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-
bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';} .ExternalClass
span.EC_EmailStyle17 {font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:windowtext;} .ExternalClass
.EC_MsoChpDefault {;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in;} .ExternalClass
div.EC_Section1 {page:Section1;} .ExternalClass ol {margin-bottom:0in;} .ExternalClass
ul {margin-bottom:0in;}
Participation in Stock Class, with the exception of J-Stock, is virtually non-existent.
[By requiring new budget-minded Stock-Class participants to install (a) right-side nets,
(b) fire-suppression systems, (c) welded-in cages, and (d) electrical cut-off switches in
what is essentially a street car, but not allow performance enhancements, is not an
attractive option to prospective participants as it essentially makes the car’s interior
unusable for road use yet leaves the car non-competitive for track use. The obvious
answer is, of course, to run in Prepared Class which solves the performance issue but
is also significantly more costly.]
In an effort to increase Stock Class participation from new racers, with a focus on
advanced driver’s school participants, and given recent safety enhancements now
requiring the implementation of (a) right-side nets, (b) fire-suppression systems, (c)
welded-in cages, and (d) electrical cut-off switches which, in the aggregate, may (1)
result in modifications to the Stock Class vehicle’s interior not specifically addressed in
the current rules, and (2) result in the Stock Class becoming an even less-attractive
venue for new participants, I hereby propose the following changes:



1) Allow Stock Class vehicles the option to install a proper 8-pt welded cage including
the ability to tie cage to rear shock towers allowing added protection for stock fuel tank.
2) Allow Stock Class vehicles the option to remove any and all interior components and
trim pieces (as currently allowed in Prepared Class) in order to accommodate the
proper installation a) right-side nets, (b) fire-suppression systems, and (c) welded-in
cages, however, minimum weight requirements will be maintained.
Thanks for the consideration,
Rob Jackowitz
20c Stock: Allow Prepared Level Cages
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: jlcmd81@hotmail.com
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject:
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 08:19:09 -0700

.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} I respectfully propose two rule changes.

1) Change interior preparation and roll cage specifications in stock classes to equal
prepared class rules.

I believe stock class is underutilized as a entry level class, these changes would make
the stock class cars safer and would make easier the transition from HPDE to
BMWCCA CR. It would allow some to move into prepared class in a seamless manner.
All would help promote participation in BMWCCA CR.
Was it the intent of stock class to allow a minimally prepped daily driver to be driven to
and from the track to minimize cost? This is a relic of the SCCA rule book from the last
century.
Do we have any racers that use their car with a fully welded in cage without race shells?
Does anyone use this as a street car?
Should a stock class car be any less safely prepped than a prepared class car?
Can a cage designed for maximum driver protection be installed with the interior intact?
Is it reasonable to place a fully plumbed fire system in a car that has 50-75 of highly
flammable and toxic fume producing hydrocarbons in the interior?
Does removing the driver side carpet and insulation and leaving 3/4 of the incendiary
components in place allow any increased measure of safety?
If a racer should be able to exit a prepared car in 10 seconds should we demand a
stock class driver to exit in 2.5 seconds?
Is there anything within the "spirit of club racing" that supercedes safety?
Stock class should refect stock performance, reliability and lower cost, not stock
appearance or safety.
Lynn Cochran
BMWCCA CR #1310
195 I Stock


21a SE36: Sedans - allow the removal of window actuator mechanisms
Secondly, us SE36 sedan vehicles are at a weight penalty due to the requirement of
retaining the rear door motor, regulators, and glass. I would like to have the rules
changed that those components in the rear doors can be removed, but the window
glass must be fixed into place if they do remove the components. There is very little
additional cost to the racer for this modification, and will help us get closer to the weight
of our coupe counterparts (who do not have these additional components weighting
them down). I have stripped nearly everything I could off the car within the rules
(including the heater box and wiring). Despite this, I still am at 2900 lbs dry.
Thank you much,

Christopher Wadle
License #1313
Car #74


21b SE36: Sedans allow the removal of window actuator mechanisms
Subject: Rule change request - SpecE36
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:34:54 –0700

Hi,
I am requesting the rules committee to consider 2 proposals for rule changes for
SpecE36 class. Main reason for the request is to allow a little more weight out of the
sedans, as the coupes have smaller rear windows and no window actuator
mechanisms.
    1. For the rear doors of 4 door cars, the current rules state that window
       mechanisms must remain intact, but need not be operative. The request is to
       change it to allow the removal of window actuator mechanisms as long as the
       window glass is secured in the raised position.

Vivek Govindapillai
License #714


21c SE36: Sedans allow the removal of window actuator mechanisms
From: johnmdanskin@gmail.com
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: spece36 sedan rear door panel and window controls removal
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:50:20 -0700

Hi, My racer number is 1423.

I'd like to propose that for spece36 sedans (325is), we be allowed to remove the rear
door panel and window controls, with glass fixed up.
This would help sedans lose a little of the weight penalty we have relative to the coupes,
and get to min-weight a little more easily.

I believe that I am not the only person requesting this change.

thanks!
john
22 Stock: Allow for E30 chassis cars to use the factory available
convertible front
chassis reinforcements

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rules change proposal EH12
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:46:19 -0700


This would probably fall under body/chassis/interior..
For prepared (and perhaps stock too)
Allow for E30 chassis cars to use the factory available convertible front
chassis reinforcements.
The newest of these cars are now 18 years old as of the 2009 season, and
these cars are not known as the stiffest chassis, and they've been run hard
and long - and the front shock tower area is a common crack area.
I think this would be a good way to help restore some structural integrity
to these older cars.
Eric Heinrich
JS 10
Lic# 940


23 Stock: Splitter/Rear Spoiler Language Changes


--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rules change proposal EH11
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:38:23 -0700



Stock, Body Chassis etc:

The spoiler/splitter wing wording is still a bit ambiguous (hence the reason
for my rules clarification request earlier this year - copied here)

------------------------

(08-0018 Jan 23, 2008 Body/Chassis/Interior STOCK "Spoilers are free
providing they do not exceed maximum body width. Installed devices must be
consistent with the spirit of the original design of the car such as those
presented by aftermarket sources. For example, homemade panels attached to
the car would not conform to the spirit of the original design unless they
emulate such a part, such as splitter panel. Dive plates are prohibited."

Glossary: "Lip-Type Rear Spoiler - A directly attached aerodynamic device
which generates downforce from the action of air flowing over a single
surface, creating a turbulent depression away from the direction of motion"

Does the attached definition fall under the attached rule wording?

Yes. Jan 23, 2008 )

-------------------------

I recommend simplifying the wording regarding spoilers and splitters by
removing the ambiguity of the "in keeping with the spirit of the design of
the car"

Why not just word it as, "splitters are free provided they follow the
general outline of the front of the car and do not have a top lip that
exceeds 1 inch"

For spoilers, clarify/add: "Decklid mounted lip-type rear spoilers are
allowed provided they do not exceed (2? 3?)inches in height - see appendix
for definition."

The height limitation will prevent people from slapping a Nascar type 6 ingh
high spoiler on the back of the car, but allow for
factory/dealer/aftermarket trunklid spoilers that are commonly available.

Eric Heinrich
JS10
Lic#940


24 Stock: Allow Removal of interior fender liners


--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rules change proposal EH10
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:09:46 -0700
Stock class - I suggest allowing plastic interior fender liners to be
removed in stock class. (maybe add this line to the section that says fender
lips may be rolled or ground...)

25 Stock: Allow All or partial removal of Headliners – to facilitate Prepared-
level cages


Eric Heinrich
JS 10
Lic#940

Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rules change proposal EH8
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:04:42 -0700


In short: allow for a single set of cage construction rules for stock and
prepared.
------------------------
Considering the abundance of low cost E36 M3's available, we really should
have many more racers especially in IS.
Stock class should be the lowest cost of entry - add a cage and safety gear,
and some stiff springs shocks and sway bars.
If a stock class cage is built, when going to prepared the cage has a gap of
a few inches from the roof when you remove the headliner, and the rear bars
don't go past the passenger compartment. Nobody is going to want to change
their cage after it's been built.
---------------------------
Safety, Section 3,
As written:
BMW CCA Club Racing Rules V13.3.2 - 3/24/2008
Page 16 of 139
A.
Cage tubing cannot be welded or bolted to the sides or roof and cannot be
attached to stiffening devices in trunk or engine compartment. NOTE: Stock
class car cages may NOT include braces to the rear shock towers. The few
cars that were approved with this configuration will be grandfathered and
allowed to remain in Stock IF they submit documentation in writing to the
National Technical Steward (NTS) including copies of log books, etc. proving
they had been authorized this construction for Stock class. The NTS will
respond in writing; such authorization must remain in the car's logbook.
Without such documentation, the car will compete in Prepared classes.
B.
PREPARED and Spec E36 classes - Main hoop braces may be mounted to the frame
or chassis (rear shock mounts, shock towers or accessible frame rails). Such
rear braces may pass through any rear bulkhead or panel separating the
driver/passenger compartment from the trunk/cargo area/fuel tank/fuel cell
area, provided the bulkhead or panel is sealed around said cage braces.
------------
I propose making 2 changes to the cage rules for stock, so people can build
a proper cage once, that will allow them to easily move up in preparation
level as they desire without needing to change aspects of their cage. (or
thinking they need/should)
So part 1 of the change would be to add Stock to paragraph B above and get
rid of paragraph A.
Part 2 would be to allow headliners in stock to be cut or removed in part or
full to allow for minimal cage to roof clearance.
I am not proposing allowing the removal of other interior panels as required
in stock class rules, just the headliner.
---------
Eric Heinrich
JS 10
Lic#940



26 Prepared: Allow underdrive pulleys in 2011


--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rules change proposal EH7
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:34:51 -0700


Prepared - in 2011, allow for external engine pulleys of different diameter
and/or aftermarket manufacture to be added
(This will allow for cars to crossover more easily between ITS/ITR and
prepared, and will help offset some of the power loss from the disallowance
of cams and other internal engine mods)
Eric Heinrich
JS 10
Lic#940
27 Prepared: Proposed Accelerated weight penalty schedule for back-to-
stock engine proposal

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rules change proposal EH6
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:30:40 -0700


Prepared *again*, tailing on the last one I submitted:
This is copied from an online forum thread
---------------------------:
What about phasing this in over the next few years so that by 2012 or 13 no
internal motor changes will be allowed? Maybe something like cams legal in
2009.
Cams legal in 2010 but carry a 50 lbs weight penalty
Cams legal in 2011 but carry a 75lb weight penalty
Cams legal in 2012 but carry a 100lb weight penalty
2013 - no internal mods allowed from the air filter to the exhaust port.
All this in prepared class.
--------------------
I missed this early on but I would be in favor of that, but perhaps move the
timeline up a little bit, so say :
2009 - add 75lbs
2010 - add 150 lbs
2011 - mods between the filter and exhaust port only allowed in Mod
That's a 3 years window to prepare people for the change, and many of the
top prepared cars may move into Mod by that time anyways.
Eric Heinrich




28 Prepared: Make Non OEM Cams illegal in 2011

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rules change proposal EH5
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:55:59 -0700



Prepared
Again trying to reign in cost.
Give racers a couple years before internal engine mods go away.
As of 2011, not internal engine changes in prepared are alloweed other than
those in stock class.
One excepotion would be leave piston .040 overbores as allowed.
Eric Heinrich
JS 10
Lic#940


29 Prepared: Take Away all Prepared Aero – Revert to Stock Aero
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rules change proposal EH4
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:54:06 -0700


Prepared , body chassis exterior
I think the class prep level needs to be reigned in.
I suggest giving racers a few years before backing things out, such as
As of an 1 2011, in prepared, aftermarket wings are not allowed. If you are
running an aftermarket rear wing, that will put you into Mod
>From 2011 on prepared wings/rear spoilers should be the same as stock class.
(Factory or dealer installed or available, Euro or Us available)or
duplications of same.
Eric Heinrich
JS 10
Lic#940




30 Procedure: Maintain 20 Pt Contact Penalty

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rules change proposal - contact penalties
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:49:17 -0700


I am strongly in favor of keeping the 20 point deduction from points for
contact in place - this is a strong deterrent for contact.(not a change,
just sharing my opinion)
Eric Heinrich
31 Procedure: Standardize Exit Time (egress) Requirement

From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rules change proposal EH3
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:47:40 -0700


Safety - Exit Time
Regardless of cage construction, (FIA, factory/motorsport/approved
alternative design or other) racers must be able to exit the car in less
than "XX" seconds. Stewards reserve the right to test any racer for
performance at any point in time.
( I'm not an expert on what that time should be, but there must be a
standard in other sedan/touring car series such as 15 or 220 seconds or
something like that.)
( Does it make sense that this time requirement be based on "doors
shut"/through the window exit time?)
Eric Heinrich
JS 10
Lic#940
 ( I'm not an expert on what that time should be, but there must be a
standard in other sedan/touring car series such as 15 or 220 seconds or
something like that.)
( Does it make sense that this time requirement be based on "doors
shut"/through the window exit time?)

Eric Heinrich
JS 10
Lic#940


32 Points: Add 2nd tiebreaker for championships – lap records or fastest
laps

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rules change proposal EH2
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:41:45 -0700


I recoomend the following rules be changed/added: (Champions paragraph E) ~
page 102)
For points - mational, regional or otherwise:
In the event of a tie (season championship), add a second tie breaker - if
there is a tie for # of 1st places, the champion shall be determined by the
number of lap records earned. If no lap records were earned, the champion
shall be determined by the number of fastest race laps earned.
Eric Heinrich
JS 10
Lic #940


33 Points: Add race points for lap records, fastest laps etc.


Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: ericheinrich@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rules change proposal EH1
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:35:17 -0700


For national or regional points series, I recommend the following rules be
added:
For a fast lap of the event, add one point. This is for each class, not just
overall.
For a class lap record, add 2 points.
These will be considered base points and subject to any event multipliers
such as 150% or 200% etc.
Point(s) for fast lap and/or lap record shall be awarded only once per event
per class.
Times used shall be race times, not qualifying times.
Times from racers who are DQ or DNF (from the race the lap was set in) shall
not apply.
A single racer may earn points for both fast lap and lap record in class for
each event (3 points total, subject to event multipliers).
(see additional rules change submitted regarding tie-breakers as well)
Eric Heinrich
JS 10
Lic#940
34 Classification: Lower I Class weight to Power to 12

35 Classification: Add 80 Lbs to Z4 Roadster and Z Coupe to move them to
I Class


--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: sctsracing@msn.com
To: mike@mwmills.us
CC: mills.m.w@gmail.com
Subject: Car classes in BMW Club Racing - I class
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 23:19:49 -0700

Hi Mike -
Okay, I reviewed the classing for stock classes. The re-classification of the Z4 Coupe
3.0 was indeed due to the hp rating getting changed to 255, so that explains why it went
from I to H.
After my re-review, here are my impressions: It seems that the I class has a tighter
weight/power ratio band than any of the other classes (1.49). The other classes seem to
have around a 2.5 band or more. At one time, the low end 12.5 number may have been
arrived at to separate the regular e36 M3s from the e36 M3 ltw's. But I believe that
tighter band in the I class is part of what may be limiting 'decent' car choices for I-Stock
(yes, that may be somewhat subjective, but the reality is I don't believe there is another
car racing in IP other than e36 M3s).
At this time, there are 4 cars that are in the region of 12.0 to 12.5:
12.27 e45 M5 (very rare)
12.29 e36 M3 ltw (pretty rare - there may be only one in H-stock left)
12.10 Z4 roadster 3.0 (2007)
12.19 Z4 coupe 3.0 (2007)
Just as it was when people didn't think it was reasonable for regular e36 M3s classed
with e36 M3 ltws, I don't it's a reasonable expectation for Z4 roadsters and coupes to be
classed in H with MZ4 Coupes and Roadsters. I believe they belong in I (especially with
open diffs in stock class) and there are a couple of ways (maybe even more) how that
could happen:

1) Lower the bottom weight/power ratio of I down to 12.0 and H would be 11.99 and
lower. That would affect the 4 cars listed above, moving them to I. That would increase
the band of weight/power in I from 1.49 to 1.99.
2) As was done with e36 M3 ltws (weight add to put them in IP), add about 80 pounds to
the racing weights of the Z4 roadster and Z4 coupe and move them to I.
Scott Cary
36 Classification: Add 110 lbs to 3.2 liter IP Cars


Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: davew@rareprojections.com
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: IP rules
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 22:21:22 -0700

I would like to see a rule which equalizes the difference between 3.0 engines on the '95
M3's and the later 3.2 engines. As we know, their is no difference in stock horsepower
(240) but their is a difference in torque of 11 foot pounds in favor of the 3.2 liter motors.
This advantage has been evident in that the front runners in IP are almost always 3.2
liter equipped cars. Since it is commonly accepted that a horsepower equals 10 lbs, I
think that the same applies to torque, I would propose that 3.0 liter cars be allowed to be
110 lbs lighter than those equipped with 3.2 liter motors. Their is no question that the
3.2 gets cars off of corners quicker than the 3.0. Some sort of weight concession is the
easiest way to equalize this disparity.
Thanks,
Dave Wollman


37 Classification: Allow 1995 M3's to be prepped to LTW Specs + Moved to
H Stock




2) Allow 1995 E36 M3s to be prepped to 1995 LTW M3 specifications and raced in H
stock class.

I believe the LTW M3 has a place of distinction in BMW club racing and should be
honored.
It allows racing at a better suited weight in stock class both in terms of perfomance and
cost of consumables.
I read the rules to allow a 1995 M3 to raced in this configuration and class, but a rules
clarification in 2007 was contrary.
I do not read the paragraph cited in the rule clarification to justify the position taken.
The 1995 LTW M3 had many BMW motorsport components not installed "as delivered
from the dealer". Installation of these components are no less difficult than preparation
of a 1995 M3 I Stock to LTW configuration and certainly less than preparing a 1995 M3
to I stock configuration.
There is a current precedent of club racing stewards allowing a 1995 M3 to be
repeatedly raced in H stock in this configuration.
Thank you for your consideration.

Lynn Cochran
BMWCCA CR #1310
195 I Stock


38: Procedure: consider the BSI helmet standard for 2009
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: gsparks@pol.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: BSI
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 01:06:21 -0700


Please consider the BSI helmet standard for 2009
Thank you
Gerry Sparks
License 1378




39 Procedure: Sharpen Language RE Qualifying driver must start race or
back of the grid with you

40 Procedure: Minimize influence a "ringer" driver can have on a multiple-
driver car


Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: imxman@msn.com
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: enduro qualifying/starting driver
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:59:24 -0700

Hello rule committee:
I would like to add language to the characteristics of the race section that clarifies
starting grid position is awarded to the driver who qualified the car and if a race-starting
driver substitute is made, then the car will start at the back of grid. This supplements the
enduro rules Appendix E.5.A.3. and extends the principal to sprint races. The existing
intent is obvious, but there seems to be some question about it from the racers.
Also I would like to add language to the Points system that minimizes the influence a
"ringer" driver can have on a multiple-driver car.
Thank you.
- Xavier McClure, license 253.
Appendix E, section 3.B.1.a. -
Suggested New paragraph (iii):
Starting grid position is determined by the driver actually starting the race. If the driver
starting the race did not establish a qualifying lap time during the prescribed qualifying
session, then the car shall start at the back of the grid.
Appendix G, Points & Penalty Calculation, section 1.C. -
Suggested New paragraph 1:
In a multiple-driver car, finishing position points are awarded only to the driver who
completes the greatest number of race laps. In the event of two or more drivers tying for
the greatest number of laps, the finishing position points will be awarded to the driver
who started the race.
Appendix G, Points & Penalty Calculation, section 1.D. -
Suggested New Paragraph 1:
In a multiple-driver car, Bonus Points are awarded only to the driver who completes the
greatest number of race laps. In the event of two or more drivers tying for the greatest
number of laps, the Bonus points will be awarded to the driver who started the race

41 Stock/Prepared: Allow front Lexan for cost reasons


--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: m3matt@comcast.net
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Rule Suggestions
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:10:28 -0700


Prepared (and possibly stock) should have the option of running front
lexan as a windshield instead of glass. There really is no weight
issue (still have to make minimum weight) but it is safer (no
shattered glass on track) and cheaper as our IP car goes through 3
glass windshields a season from debris being thrown up at the track
_Matt Sedacca
License 1010


42 Prepared: Allow use of Ackerman Spacers


--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: scottcasagrande@onceanddone.com
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: Ackerman Spacers
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 08:15:34 -0700
I suggest the use of Ackerman spacers be approved for Prepared class. I
believe this is an e30 m3 only item, but I am not 100% on that. As we are
currently and have always been able to use Coil Over set ups in Prepared,
many of which are shorter than the stock strut housings, and further allow
us to lower the vehicles from stock height these spacers in turn allow us to
reposition the angle of the control arms, reducing the stress placed on the
control arm ball joints. As these are a known failure point on the e30 and
specifically the e30 m3 this could be considered a safety item. Again, I
suggest this only for Prepared Class and Mod (if not included already).
Scott Casagrande
JP#12



43 Prepared: Passenger Door Bar Allowances (more like NASA)?


Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: mgoulde@gmail.com
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: 2009 Rules Change Request
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 08:00:58 -0700


In Prepared, NASCAR style side bars are allowed on the passenger side
as well as the driver's side. They shall meet all standards for
required bars in terms of number material and each bar shall have no
more than four bends. Doors may be gutted as necessary to allow
installation. Outside door handles must remain operative. Provisions
for opening each door from inside must be provided. SFI-rated roll bar
padding must be provided on all parts of the bars that may come into
contact with the driver.
Rationale:
NASCAR bars in driver's door have been permitted in the past.
Passengers, such as instructors should be able to provided with the
same level of protection as the driver. The NASCAR bar places
increased distance between the driver (and passenger's) side, reducing
the change of hitting the bar in case of severe side impact. In SCCA
Touring rules, NASCAR bars are permitted on driver's side and optional
on passenger side.
NASA CCR permits two bars on both sides of the car, which would cover
NASCAR configuration. The doors may be gutted and "modifications to
any non-chassis structure (such as door panels, inner door sheet
metal, windows, door internals, etc.) may be made to accommodate any
allowed door bar configuration. However, removal of material and / or
modifications is limited to 1) the least amount to accommodate the
door bar(s), and 2) can serve no other function.
Current BMWCCA Club Racing rules requiring individual approval for
each car would seem to be contradictory to practice in otherwise
compatible sanctioning bodies but for no discernible reason, hence the
request for this change.
Michael Goulde
license 1019


44 Procedure: Allow BMWCCA Racing School Grads to participate in
Practice sessions and fun races w/o a license. (non racer submit)


--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: bob@cwb-materials.com
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Subject: 2009 Rules changes
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 06:02:56 -0700

.
Hello
I am a tweener. And I will be a tweener for another year or so. What I mean is….I have
passed Club Race School several times and will probably get a couple more degrees,
before my car is done. I need $$$ to finish it and that takes time for many of us. I am
looking at buying a used race car, but that still takes about the same $$$....
Here is my point. We need something to keep us Tweeners busy between graduating
DE’s and being a competing Club Racer.
I am suggesting that after we pass club racing school, if we are not ready to compete,
that maybe we are allowed to participate with Club Racers in the practice sessions and
other “non-points” events. The racers can teach us so much and the more we get to talk
to them, the quicker we can come and play too. They keep us from wasting money and
making mistakes AND many have good used parts to help us out sitting around.
It is a win-win I think, as we would also be paying some portion of the entry fees for the
events too. Maybe this is like Club Racing school rules, at least a roll bar, 4 pt harness,
etc. But not the full cage and all that is the final step for many of us. As we drive our
cars on the street leading up to the Ceremonial Gutting and Caging…..smile.
Think about it please. There are a bunch of us out there with cars that are highly
modified, but not Rule Book legal yet.
Bob Wright
Allegheny Chapter
412-996-2112
45 Procedure: any claim of mechanical malfunction/failure MUST be made
prior to exiting post-incident impound.


--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: bmwand737@yahoo.com
To: deanscca@localnet.com; bsmith@ensr.aecom.com; Mike@MWMills.US
Subject: Re xxxx Appeal
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 06:16:50 -0700

After reviewing a recent appeal concerning a post-impound claim of mechanical issues,
I discovered there is no specific language limiting when a racer may make such a claim.
Although I brief it as such in my first drivers' meeting of an event, I believe the rules
should make it crystal clear that any claim of mechanical malfunction/failure MUST be
made prior to exiting post-incident impound. The sad fact is that there is somebody out
there who would "manufacture" a failure after impound and then claim it as the reason
for the incident. Inserting language as suggested here would preclude that possibility.
Additionally, we have language that specifies the driver as the ultimate bearer of
responsibility for compliance with the tech rules but while we emphasize the "spirit" of
Club Racing (non-contact, class competition, etc), the rules do not state that the driver
bears ultimate responsibility for avoiding incidents and, more specifically, those
attributable to changing conditions of the car, its components and the track (hot brakes,
worn brakes, worn tires, wet track, etc). While it seems obvious, the trend towards
appeals of anything not specifically delineated within the rules seems to make it prudent
to make the driver responsible for making necessary/prudent driving adjustments for all
current conditions and for tech compliance.
Thanks ...
Steve

S Olsen <bmwand737@yahoo.com> wrote:
Attached is a draft of the Committee letter concerning the xxxx appeal. As is the
standard, the vote is not revealed (in this case 4-1), only the conclusion.
Please review the attached draft of the letter for Dean to send to the appellant and
advise me of any suggested changes. I intend to submit the Committee's letter to Dean
on Monday evening unless we have suggested changes.
Steve
PS As a side note, I am going to ask Mike, Dean and Bruce to consider a couple of
changes to the rules that will specifically mandate that any mechanical defect/failure
issues must be identified while in post-incident impound. Items "discovered" after
impound would not be eligible for consideration. This is pretty much standard procedure
in every racing venue that I'm familiar with.
I'll also ask for inclusion of specific language which states that the driver is responsible
for maintaining proper control of the racecar including necessary and prudent
adjustments for the conditions of the racecar and the racetrack.
I am not presenting these as the suggestion of the Committee but rather as my personal
suggestions to strengthen the stewards' position in enforcing what should be obvious.
46 Procedure: Add 2 more RAC members to the RC, Chairman is Tiebreak
in 3-3 vote.


From: Mike Akard - ACT [mailto:makard@act-inc.com]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 8:42 PM
To: mike@mwmills.us
Subject: Rule Committee

Mike,


The reason for this email, I would like to ask you to seriously consider modifying the
Rules Committee to include two more members of the RAC (selected by vote within the
RAC like the current single RC rep).

I believe that having increased racer input....plus diversity from around the country will
greatly benefit the RC.

I also believe that with 6 members rather than 4, the RC will be more likely to catch
some of the snafus that have slipped through the cracks over the years.

Plus, I would strongly support the Chairman having the final say in the event there is a
3-3 tie among the larger RC. Therefore, the balance of "power" really does not move
any closer to being a democracy. The racers get more voice in the discussions, but the
Chairman, National Tech, and National Comp RC members still carry the vote if it is 3-3.

I honestly can't see any potential down side to this proposal and I DO see a LOT of
advantages. I KNOW, from first-hand experience, that the members of the RAC would
feel MUCH less frustrated if we felt our efforts were not in vain (or at least seeming that
way as we have no formal means to share them other than through our single rep to the
RC). IF you have ANY feelings that I'm chasing "power" for Mike Akard, I'm happy to
step aside and allow other members of the RAC to fill the spots should there be any
concern that I have any ulterior motives other than what I believe to be the best interest
of the club. I do want to be involved, but I believe that improving the format of the RC
better suits the club than my personal desires if having me on the RC in any way would
interfere with you giving serious consideration to giving the racers a stronger former
voice on the RC (again without relinquishing ANY "power" from the current voting
majority).

Please give this proposal a look.


Mike Akard
47 Classification: Don’t Allow ITR crossover cars to run in JS


Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 28, 2007, at 6:57 PM, "Eric Heinrich"
<mailto:ericheinrich@comcast.netericheinrich@comcast.net> wrote:

Multiple people at NHIS this weekend were talking about the potential for stock class
rules to be changed to allow SCCA ITR cars to run in the same class as us.
J-Stock is arguably the only real stock class. I made some suggestions not too long ago
about combining a couple of the stock classes, which could be fairly easily done. A few
racers suggested it was a good idea, but more than a few people basically told me to
pound sand, and that every car should have it's class. That's why we had 14 racers
representing 6 classes this weekend.
ITR cars are basically ITS cars unrestricted with larger wheels and tires, gutted interiors,
spherical bearings and options to change differentials. ITS cars have always been faster
than JS cars in the Northeast from what I can remember, and historically the NE JS
racers tend to be a quick bunch. This will only widen that spread and hurt a perfectly
good class.
In stock the racers were just made to put their gloveboxes, consoles, wheel well liners
and shift boots back in. Now we're going to have to take them all back out? And get
spherical bearings? Oh yeah, and now I get to spend a bunch of extra money on
different differentials. (right now I can rebuild my diff to exact factory specs, is that going
to change next year? Or the year after?)
I think this is a bad idea.
JS is fine. The ruleset is fine, the class is fine, there is a regular influx of new racers into
this class.
It is my personal opinion that too much messing with the rules will drive people away.
People will start going to NASA/Spec E30/GTS Challenge/ITR. Some already have.
CR has too many classes. I think fixing some of the classes that are royally screwed up
would be a better place to start thean to mess with a class that is just fine, or adding
more classes.
ITR is a class that is brand new and is just developing - I myself doubt that the SCCA
won't tweak the ruleset to make sure it works over the first couple of years. I say leave it
alone for at least another 2 years and see how that class develops. A stable ruleset will
attract racers. The rules are anything but stable right now.
Here's an off the wall suggestion for thought ( I will be putting some thought into rules
change proposals for when the appropriate time comes next year)...give the prepared
class racers a timeline - you have 2 or 3 years to get rid of your cams/injectors/big
brakes. At that time, the ruleset for prepared will be returned to it's original intention, in
line with improved touring - stock cars gutted with allowed suspension improvements. -
that's when you model the ruleset to attract racers from other venues.
Some classes will have a hard time with this - KP in particular. Leave KP alone, or give
them 3 years to ditch their cams or they get bumped to EM. Leave JS alone, or give it 3
years to plan for a combining of classes - ITR, JS, JP - all get lumped together with no
cams or injectors allowed, coilovers allowed, big brakes not, max wheel 17X8, and
factory spoilers/splitters/wings are ok, but not aftermarket.
Another thought is to get the SPEC E36 trunk kit marketed to the driver school crowd so
as they develop their cars they buld to an existing class that makes sense and has a
chance at growing. The same thing needs to be done/created for the E36 M3.
IP and HP - most of those cars are as fast or almost as fast as the MOD cars anyways.
Combine them in 2 or 3 years.
Eric Heinrich


48 Procedure: Remove required Pit Stop From Enduros


forwarded Message Attachment--
From: Davidwollman@cs.com
To: reddogs-racing@earthlink.net
CC: rmndrvuwld@msn.com; stanpark@rochester.rr.com; bsmith@ensr.aecom.com;
Mike@MWMills.us; david@davidmcintyre.org


Subject: Re: Tuesday morning's report on the Glen's enduro
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:24:55 -0700

Larry, et al,

This problem will always occur with enduros. I don't know any racer that like the idea of
the pit stop. It only serves to disrupt the racing order and create a situation where you
have no idea of where you stand, who is ahead or behind, etc.

Saturday's race was a long sprint (I think it was as many laps as the Endouro), and was
enjoyed by everyone far more that the Enduro. We all complain about what the pit stops
do, and yet nothing is done to change it. We all are capable of running 45-60 minutes
without a pit stop. I don't understand why it is mandated in the rules.

Just my two cents,

Dave



49 Prepared: Allow cage extensions to the front strut tower braces
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: wlh@fkinc.com
To: chairman@bmwccaclubracing.com; deanscca@localnet.com;
bmw.nationaltech@gmail.com; joe@hmsmotorsport.com
CC: gnakasato@hotmail.com
Subject: Cage Rules for Prepared Classes.. . probably for '09
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 05:14:24 -0700

Mike and company,
I am sorry to bother you with this but I didn't see an appropriate contact for the rules
committee for '09 so I thought by sending my request to this esteemed group (no
sucking up here!) it would find itself into the right hands.
As some of you know from my post to the CR SIG, I am planning to build an IP Car for
next season and have recruited a new racer, Gary Nakasato, who is planning to do the
same. We have set safety as our number 1 priority in construction of the cars. I fully
understand the risks of this sport and have promised my family and myself that I would
not skimp in the areas that will improve my odds of avoiding serious injury or death
WHEN the likely collision occurs.
Here is a clip of my post..
>>>>>
Gary Nakasato and I are planning on building (or more accurately, have built) a pair of
IP cars for next season. In reading the rules for the Prepared classes, a member that
penetrates the firewall is prohibited. Being very new to this, I don't know the logic behind
many of the rules (and I am not questioning that there is good logic... ), but it seems that
this prevents using designs that appear to be better for safety as well as performance. I
am speaking of cage designs we have seen in the higher level race cars where there is
a triangular pattern of braces through the firewall up to the front strut towers (which are
also reinforced).
Do these designs provide better protection for the passenger compartment? Does the
penetration of the firewall cause an additional fire injury risk?
If these designs in fact ;
1. provide additional safety and
2. provide better performance
Maybe they should be allowed (not required) in the '09 rules?
If it is a better design, but not allowed under current rules, would a similar design that
had flanges on either side of the firewall with bolts penetrating the firewall violate the
rules?
>>>>>>>
The responses I received to this post really did not answer any of my questions in a
definitive manner. I do not know if the cage designs used in the higher level race cars
are truly safer (although I suspect they are). If they are safer, it seems incomprehensible
that the CR rules would prohibit their use. If it requires a weight penalty, or some other
performance equalization, so be it. It seems that any prepared level modifications that
increase safety AND increase performance are the best kinds to endorse for the future
of the sport. If this means that older built cars are less safe and less competitive than
new ones, that is probably not real news. It happens all of the time I suspect. If it is in
fact safer we are pushing our sport in right direction (IMHO).
For an additional perspective, I have attached a reply that Gary wanted to post to the
CR SIG and I discouraged him from doing so to avoid additional pointless bickering
within the CR group....
CLIP>>>>>>>
Bill:

Since I'm not in that list, would you please quote me on this response?:


"It's a pretty solid performance advantage and would required, in essence,
everyone who has built a full tilt Prepared car to go back and spend
hundreds if not thousands of dollars."

I don't mean to offend anybody, or trying to be an expert on something I'm totally new
at, but as a Rookie who wants to enjoy the sport, but at the same time do it in the safest
way possible given the circumstances, this is my personal view of things.

For me to be able to race, besides the car, I HAD to spend:

Helmet: $800
Hans: $800
Firesuit: $1400
Shoes: $150
Gloves: $100
Nomex underwear: $120
Fire extinguisher system: $500
Cage: $4000

Total: $7870

If I wanted to go cheap I could have spent:

Helmet: $200
Hans: $800
Used Firesuit: $600
Shoes: $30
Gloves: $30
Underwear: $60
Fires extinguisher system: $300
Bolt on Cage: $1200

Total: $3220

That's a LOT of money for safety alone. NONE of them give me a great performance
advantage. They are not even OPTIONAL. They are MANDATORY. So I HAD to spend
that money.
Racers spend THOUSANDS of dollars in performance enhancements alone whether
they improve safety or not (they usually don't, in fact, they work the opposite direction by
increasing speed and dimishing reliability).

Now, Bill Heumann and I were talking about an OPTIONAL safety enhancement, that
will, as a side effect, also improve performance. That, I believe, would be the wisest
spent money in the whole car, I think.

Bottom line, I don't think money should be the deciding factor when safety is in question.
As long as we are talking within the boundaries of reason.

Similar arguments were brought up for racers resisting the mandatory use or the HANS
device.


"With the right builder, the Prepared-legal cage design are excellent".

I don't doubt this one bit. That's why I'm spending 4 times as much money to make the
cage as safe as possible. I just wonder what would have happened had you hit a
concrete wall at the same speed. Glad to know you and your friend are doing well.

But my concern is, why are we not allowed to make it safer still? Anecdotal experiences
are not the best way to evaluate the performance of a cage. True crash testing at
certain angles, speeds and loads would be the optimal way to do it, but to be realistic,
that's impossible at club racing level.

I just wonder how a Prepared-legal cage would perform in a crash like Joey Hand's at
Mid-Ohio. Would he still be walking?
>>>>>
Thanks in advance for your consideration and any direction or guidance you may
provide.
Regards,
Bill Heumann
Currently JP '09
CR #1303
President, Bluegrass Bimmers CCA


50 Procedure: Waive right side net requirement if seat incorporates head
restraint system

From: RulesChanges-owner@bmwccaclubracing.com [mailto:RulesChanges-
owner@bmwccaclubracing.com] On Behalf Of Msgroner@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:14 PM
To: rule_changes2009@bmwccaclubracing.com
Cc: makard@act-inc.com
Subject: Rule change for 2009

I would like to see the right side net not be required if the seat being used has a head
restraint system built in it already. The interior net serves no purpose with these type
seats and is an unnecessary added expense for the racer. Other racing venues have
this rule in place.
Regards,
Matt Groner

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:10/10/2012
language:English
pages:44