-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: [E36M3] Negative camber: Possible to have too much? - from LoweSeaton@aol.com
Top
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:04:32 EST From: LoweSeaton@aol.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] Negative camber: Possible to have too much? Rob, I don't think you thinking about this but negative camber does hurt your straight line braking. Remember that trio of Dinan M3's that all the car rags tested? The Stage 3 M3 had something line 3 degrees negative camber and sticky R-compound tires. The Stage 1 M3 had stock suspension and street tires. Guess which one had the shortest stopping distance? It was the stock tired M3. Why? The Stage 3 M3 had much stickier tires but it had so much negative camber that the tires were not making the best contact with the ground for straight line braking. Tires are always best when they are perfectly perpendicular to the ground. For straight line driving, this is zero camber. I think whatever you do, will be a compromise. If you are drag racing, then you want zero camber. The other extreme is Indy cars. They have much more than 3 degrees negative camber but they are corning at 200 mph. I've got adjustable K-MAC camber plates. I have them set for as little camber as possible for street use and I increase the camber for track/autocross. That is one way around the camber issue. I like them. What is your primary driving? If it is exclusively track driving, then 2.5-3.0 degrees camber is probably good. If it is mostly street with occasional track/autocross, maybe a little less like 1.5-2.0 would be better. Good luck. Lowell Seaton '95 M3 Dallas, Texas
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Mille Miglia MM11-2's - from Peter Guagenti
Top
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 13:05:52 -0800 From: Peter Guagenti <peter@guagenti.com> Subject: Mille Miglia MM11-2's I just won a set of Mille Miglia Wheels on eBay. They were listed as 17x9's, but I can not find any documentation on Mille Miglia making a 9" width wheel for the 3 Series cars. Does any one know if these were ever made, or are these just 17x8's that were mis-listed. The reason why I ask is I'm trying to figure out what track/autocross tires to get. Does anyone run these wheels with Hoosiers? Did you have to run spacers? Any help is greatly appreciated. -p
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. FS: Stuff! - from Jim Wilcox
Top
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:09:19 -0600 From: "Jim Wilcox" <JimShadow1@home.com> Subject: FS: Stuff! Gang, =20 Clearing out the garage as the ///M3 is on the way out. =20 I have FS the following: =20 1-RS adjustable clutch stop. Nearly new. How does $20 sound??? =20 1- X brace (used) with hardware (Not the inserts, bolts only.) $85.00 = =20 I'll ship anywhere as long as you pay the actual charges. =20 =20 JIM
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Negative camber: (Lowell) - from Rob
Top
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:15:29 -0700 From: "Rob" <motor@cadvision.com> Subject: Re: Negative camber: (Lowell) Lowell, > I don't think you thinking about this but negative camber does hurt your > straight line braking. Remember that trio of Dinan M3's that all the car > rags tested? The Stage 3 M3 had something line 3 degrees negative camber and sticky R-compound tires. ***Yes I remember this, and you are 100% correct. I didn't think about the effect camber has on braking! Might be more important than cornering in some cases :) > What is your primary driving? If it is exclusively track driving, then > 2.5-3.0 degrees camber is probably good. If it is mostly street with > occasional track/autocross, maybe a little less like 1.5-2.0 would be better. ****Daily driver but lots of track and Auto-X use. I will shoot for around -2 deg. and live with it. Still, can you have too much neg. camber on an E36 M3, at least in regards to cornering traction? Thanks, Rob
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: [E36M3] Mille Miglia MM11-2's - from Jim Powell
Top
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 13:13:09 -0800 From: Jim Powell <jsp98m3@apexcone.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Mille Miglia MM11-2's Guess what size they are if you measure across the OUTSIDE of the rim? ;) Jim And no, I didn't list them for sale Peter Guagenti wrote: > > > I just won a set of Mille Miglia Wheels on eBay. They were listed as > 17x9's, but I can not find any documentation on Mille Miglia making a 9" > width wheel for the 3 Series cars. Does any one know if these were ever > made, or are these just 17x8's that were mis-listed.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: [E36M3] FS: Stuff! - from Jim Wilcox
Top
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:24:50 -0600 From: "Jim Wilcox" <JimShadow1@home.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] FS: Stuff! X brace is sold!! JIM ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Wilcox" <JimShadow1@home.com> To: "E36M3" <e36m3@bmw-m.net> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 3:13 PM Subject: [E36M3] FS: Stuff! > Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:09:19 -0600 > From: "Jim Wilcox" <JimShadow1@home.com> > Subject: FS: Stuff! > > > Gang, > =20 > Clearing out the garage as the ///M3 is on the way out. =20 > I have FS the following: > =20 > 1-RS adjustable clutch stop. Nearly new. How does $20 sound??? > =20 > 1- X brace (used) with hardware (Not the inserts, bolts only.) $85.00 = > > =20 > I'll ship anywhere as long as you pay the actual charges. =20 > =20 > JIM > > > > ************************************************************* > List Commands > UNSUBSCRIBE - (in subject line) unsubscribes you from the mailing list. > DIR - sends a listing of files available in the list's GET directory. > GET filename1.ext,filename2.ext - sends the requested file(s). > > To issue a command/request to the server: > Send a message with the command you wish executed as the > subject of the message. > ************************************************************* > >
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: [E36M3] Re: Negative camber - from LoweSeaton@aol.com
Top
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:45:17 EST From: LoweSeaton@aol.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: Negative camber > Still, can you have too much neg. camber on an E36 M3, at least in regards > to cornering traction? Yeah, I think so. It depends on how much your M3 leans in a turn. If your M3 only leans 2 degrees but you have 4 degrees negative camber, then it is too much. The ideal is to have the tire 90 degrees with the road. But how much your M3 tilts in a turn is dependent on lots of factors. A stiffer suspension reduces the lean. But the amount of tilt is dependent on cornering speed too. The faster you corner, the more the car will rotate or tilt. I think it really comes down to cornering speeds. A lot of things change how fast you can corner. If the turns are banked, you can corner at much higher speeds. Or these Formula 1 cars which have sophisticated aerodynamics to increase their down force, they can corner at very high speeds. [I've read that Indy cars can drive upside down at over 180 mph because they have more down force than what the whole car weighs!] Wide sticky tires increase cornering speed. Temperature and rain. Track surface. What else? Lots of things :) So, maybe the best answer is it depends. If you go from street tires to sticky race tires, you can increase the camber. Or if your next race is on a high banked oval, then increase the camber. Or.... you get the picture. Who knows? I'm not trying to be facetious. I think it really can change a lot depending on the circumstances. Even race cars during a race will make small changes to the suspension. And this is after several days of practice where the mechanic supposedly dialed in the suspension. Race cars change their suspension settings from race to race. It may just be a trial and error process for you. Sorry for the bad news. :) Lowell Seaton '95 M3
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: [E36M3] Acceleration of Wheels (was Unsprung Weight) - from Matt Henson
Top
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 13:50:55 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Henson <hensonator@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Acceleration of Wheels (was Unsprung Weight) Howdy, See below.. --- LoweSeaton@aol.com wrote: > Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 15:23:05 EST > From: LoweSeaton@aol.com > Subject: [E36M3] Acceleration of Wheels (was > Unsprung Weight) > > > Matt - Thanks for the physics lesson. I always > enjoy a little calculus in a > discussion. <grin> However, I think your second > equation has a typo? 1/2 + > 1/2 = 1. So the second equation should be: > > K = Mv^2 > > Right? This mathematic derivation may help explain > a little fact: Yes the 1/2 was a typo and it is Mv^2 which is 2x the energy required for the sprung weight. Good eye. > > Here is a trick question for the List. If a car is > moving down the highway > at 60 mph, how fast is the top and bottom of the > tires moving? Answer? Give > up? Since the bottom of the tire is in contact with > the ground and the > ground is not moving, then the bottom of the tire is > going zero mph!! Yeah. > There are always 4 points on your car that are > stationary no matter how fast > you go. > > And the tops of the tires? They are traveling > exactly 2X as fast as the car > or 120 mph in this example. > > But my real reason for posting is I think the > question is about ACCELERATION > of wheels and flywheels. I hate to mention it > because now I will be expected > to do the math. :) The commonly bantered about > figures that reducing wheel > weight 1 lb is equal to reducing total weight 4-5 or > more lbs is due to the > effect of ACCELERATION and the amount of energy it > takes to accelerate the > wheel. > > Matt - I don't think your equations above take into > account acceleration. The equation gives the potential energy for the wheel at any given car speed. Acceleration is obviously required to get it to speed but once it is there it takes no energy to maintain that speed (Newton't 1st.) > You would need a term with rate of change of > velocity per unit time. I'd > have to do some research to come up with an equation > but maybe I can explain > it? > The acceleration falls out in the derivation. > Mass does not really matter if you are at a steady > speed. In fact, heavy > wheels would be good if you wanted to maintain that > steady speed. This is > the "flywheel" effect. A heavy car with big heavy > wheels would coast much > farther than a light car with light wheels given > everything else the same > (i.e. rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, frontal > area, etc.) True but my equations tell you how much energy is required to get to the target speed (or back to 0). That covers acceleration. > Another example. Ever watch science fiction movies > set in out space? In > outer space, it takes very little energy to move > objects because there is no > gravity i.e., no weight. A man could pick up a > bulldozer. However, what > does not change is mass and acceleration. Once that > bulldozer is moving, it > would take a lot of energy to rapidly slow it down > and stop it. Hence, you > see these movies with space stations crashing into > each other and Jedi > fighter pilots shooting bullets that destroy enemy > fighters. A fired bullet > in outer space will cause the same kind of impact > damage as on earth even > though a bullet does not have any weight in outer > space. > yes. > OK, back on earth what does this mean. Basically, > it means that the more > rapidly you accelerate any object, the more energy > it requires. Pretty > simple. That is why we are always concerned about > keeping our cars as light > as possible. Less weight to accelerate. yep > But why are wheels more important? Why do wheels > have 4X maybe even 10X the > effect? Because wheels and the flywheel are also > spinning. They have a > rotational or angular acceleration factor too. Matt > - I think we need to > look at the equation for ACCELERATION energy, not > kinetic energy. Do you > know what this equation is? Yes. Perhaps this link can help.. http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/581/RotationalMotion.html > I don't think you can give a blanket statement that > reducing 1 lb of wheel > weight is equal to X amount of vehicle weight > because it all depends on how > rapid you accelerate. That may be the reason we see > figures all over the > board. For example, if you accelerate you M3 from > 0-60 mph in 6 seconds and > then do another run where you accelerate from 0-60 > mph in 30 seconds, which > run do you think you used the most gas? Obviously > the faster run even though > they both ended up with the same kinetic energy - > i.e., 60 mph. It too more > energy to rapidly accelerate the M3. Nope. Conservation of energy requires that it doesn't matter how fast you accelerate to get to a given speed (or kinetic energy level). It only matters that you got there. Your example is interesting but not really you can get the best fuel economy by accelerating in 6 seconds because you maximize the VE of your engine. This assumes that the A/F ratio isn't too rich at WOT. The point is that a high rate of accelerating doesn't put any more energy into the system than slow. The engine/drivetrain may be less efficient but this is not due to any sort of rotational or linear momentum. -Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: [E36M3] Acceleration of Wheels (was Unsprung Weight) - from Matt Henson
Top
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 13:51:56 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Henson <hensonator@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Acceleration of Wheels (was Unsprung Weight) Howdy, See below.. --- LoweSeaton@aol.com wrote: > Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 15:23:05 EST > From: LoweSeaton@aol.com > Subject: [E36M3] Acceleration of Wheels (was > Unsprung Weight) > > > Matt - Thanks for the physics lesson. I always > enjoy a little calculus in a > discussion. <grin> However, I think your second > equation has a typo? 1/2 + > 1/2 = 1. So the second equation should be: > > K = Mv^2 > > Right? This mathematic derivation may help explain > a little fact: Yes the 1/2 was a typo and it is Mv^2 which is 2x the energy required for the sprung weight. Good eye. > > Here is a trick question for the List. If a car is > moving down the highway > at 60 mph, how fast is the top and bottom of the > tires moving? Answer? Give > up? Since the bottom of the tire is in contact with > the ground and the > ground is not moving, then the bottom of the tire is > going zero mph!! Yeah. > There are always 4 points on your car that are > stationary no matter how fast > you go. > > And the tops of the tires? They are traveling > exactly 2X as fast as the car > or 120 mph in this example. > > But my real reason for posting is I think the > question is about ACCELERATION > of wheels and flywheels. I hate to mention it > because now I will be expected > to do the math. :) The commonly bantered about > figures that reducing wheel > weight 1 lb is equal to reducing total weight 4-5 or > more lbs is due to the > effect of ACCELERATION and the amount of energy it > takes to accelerate the > wheel. > > Matt - I don't think your equations above take into > account acceleration. The equation gives the potential energy for the wheel at any given car speed. Acceleration is obviously required to get it to speed but once it is there it takes no energy to maintain that speed (Newton't 1st.) > You would need a term with rate of change of > velocity per unit time. I'd > have to do some research to come up with an equation > but maybe I can explain > it? > The acceleration falls out in the derivation. > Mass does not really matter if you are at a steady > speed. In fact, heavy > wheels would be good if you wanted to maintain that > steady speed. This is > the "flywheel" effect. A heavy car with big heavy > wheels would coast much > farther than a light car with light wheels given > everything else the same > (i.e. rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, frontal > area, etc.) True but my equations tell you how much energy is required to get to the target speed (or back to 0). That covers acceleration. > Another example. Ever watch science fiction movies > set in out space? In > outer space, it takes very little energy to move > objects because there is no > gravity i.e., no weight. A man could pick up a > bulldozer. However, what > does not change is mass and acceleration. Once that > bulldozer is moving, it > would take a lot of energy to rapidly slow it down > and stop it. Hence, you > see these movies with space stations crashing into > each other and Jedi > fighter pilots shooting bullets that destroy enemy > fighters. A fired bullet > in outer space will cause the same kind of impact > damage as on earth even > though a bullet does not have any weight in outer > space. > yes. > OK, back on earth what does this mean. Basically, > it means that the more > rapidly you accelerate any object, the more energy > it requires. Pretty > simple. That is why we are always concerned about > keeping our cars as light > as possible. Less weight to accelerate. yep > But why are wheels more important? Why do wheels > have 4X maybe even 10X the > effect? Because wheels and the flywheel are also > spinning. They have a > rotational or angular acceleration factor too. Matt > - I think we need to > look at the equation for ACCELERATION energy, not > kinetic energy. Do you > know what this equation is? Yes. Perhaps this link can help.. http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/581/RotationalMotion.html > I don't think you can give a blanket statement that > reducing 1 lb of wheel > weight is equal to X amount of vehicle weight > because it all depends on how > rapid you accelerate. That may be the reason we see > figures all over the > board. For example, if you accelerate you M3 from > 0-60 mph in 6 seconds and > then do another run where you accelerate from 0-60 > mph in 30 seconds, which > run do you think you used the most gas? Obviously > the faster run even though > they both ended up with the same kinetic energy - > i.e., 60 mph. It too more > energy to rapidly accelerate the M3. Nope. Conservation of energy requires that it doesn't matter how fast you accelerate to get to a given speed (or kinetic energy level). It only matters that you got there. Your example is interesting but not really you can get the best fuel economy by accelerating in 6 seconds because you maximize the VE of your engine. This assumes that the A/F ratio isn't too rich at WOT. The point is that a high rate of accelerating doesn't put any more energy into the system than slow. The engine/drivetrain may be less efficient but this is not due to any sort of rotational or linear momentum. -Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: [E36M3] Toyo RA-1 - from twisty M3
Top
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 13:52:46 -0800 From: "twisty M3" <twistym3@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Toyo RA-1 That's correct. I just can't remember if it was February or April that they said the 235/40-17 would be available... Soon though, I suppose. Jonathan L. >From: vincent.a.leo@us.arthurandersen.com1 > > >I thought someone said something about Toyo offering the RA-1 in 235 40 17 >this >year. I understand that they offer them in 235 45 17, but I was looking >for >something closer to the stock M3 tire size. > >My local mechanic carries Toyo, but he was unable to find anything about >the 235 >40 17. Any thoughts? > >Vince >99 M3 >89 M3 _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: [E36M3] Re: Turbos - from Bora Akyol
Top
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:20:26 -0800 From: "Bora Akyol" <akyol@akyol.org> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: Turbos Chris Dinan is smog legal, I know of at least one car that is street registered in CA and is smog legal. They just have not updated their website in a while. You can find a more accurate list at CARB web site. Call them and ask if you don't believe me. Bora ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Casey" <ccasey1@yahoo.com> To: "E36M3" <e36m3@bmw-m.net> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 9:52 AM Subject: [E36M3] Re: Turbos > Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:49:37 -0800 (PST) > From: Chris Casey <ccasey1@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: Turbos > > > Dinan is not CA legal - it's marked (on the web site): > > "This product is in compliance with U.S. EPA > Memorandum 1A, or this product has not been found, nor > s believed to be, unlawful for use under the > provisions of the Clean Air Act. Currently: This > product is legal in California only for racing > vehicles which may never be used upon a highway." > > Does anyone have a Dinan supercharger in CA, and, if > so, what do you do at smog check time? > > -Chris > > > Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:59:44 -0800 > > From: "Bora Akyol" <akyol@akyol.org> > > Subject: Re: [E36M3] RE: Turbos > > > > FYI, > > > > RMS is NOT CA smog-legal, Dinan is. For those of us > > living in CA, that is a > > consideration. S/C comes in handy when the power is > > out, I use my car as a > > generator ;-) > > > > Bora > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Chad Armstrong" <caarmstrong@epicor.com> > > To: "E36M3" <e36m3@bmw-m.net> > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 4:12 PM > > Subject: [E36M3] RE: Turbos > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:02:48 -0800 > > > From: Chad Armstrong <caarmstrong@epicor.com> > > > Subject: RE: Turbos > > > > > > Scott Wrote: > > > > > > "I agree that some of these turbo systems are > > relatively expensive, but > > show > > > me a better option." > > > > > > Sure Scott its called a Supercharger. Try RMS or > > Dinan. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Chad > > > > > > > > > -------------------- 4 -------------------- > > > Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:23:57 -0600 > > > From: "Scott G Hemauer" <Scott.G.Hemauer@aexp.com> > > > Subject: turbos > > > > > > > > > I am thinking of buying one of these > > systems......Please build and market > > > this > > > less expensive, better engineered and "fatter > > profit margined" turbo > > system. > > > If it is in fact all three of these then I'm sure > > it would sell very well. > > > I > > > agree that some of these turbo systems are > > relatively expensive, but show > > me > > > a > > > better option. > > > > > > Scott Hemauer > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > You paid a lot of money or that system so you > > figure > > > that it's gotta be good. And it is good. But if > > it > > > had been properly designed the price could be much > > > less - even with a fat profit margin. I'm not > > gonna > > > try to convince you of this because $10k+ out of > > your > > > pocket can support a lot of denial to convince you > > > that you spent it well. So my words are directed > > at > > > people who are thinking about buying one of their > > > systems. > > > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************************************* > > > List Commands > > > UNSUBSCRIBE - (in subject line) unsubscribes you > > from the mailing list. > > > DIR - sends a listing of files available in the > > list's GET directory. > > > GET filename1.ext,filename2.ext - sends the > > requested file(s). > > > > > > To issue a command/request to the server: > > > Send a message with the command you wish executed > > as the > > > subject of the message. > > > > > > ************************************************************* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------- 10 -------------------- > > Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:23:40 -0500 > > From: "Paul Elliott" <pelliott@rcn.com> > > Subject: : [E36M3] Stero Specialist Needed.... > > > > Sean, > > > > >>meaning you're gonna have to turn up the volume > > alot (which is bad > > too) you'll get more noise, and you'll be runinng > > everything hotter.<< > > > > I've got a gain setting question for you....I have a > > Kenwood Excelon head > > unit driving my Excelon amp via 4 volt pre-outs. > > I've always read that to > > set the levels to best keep distortion at bay, you > > should turn your amp > > gains all the way down, and turn your head unit > > volume up....Then, when your > > get a comfortable listening volume, youre supposed > > to slowly raise your amp > > gains to provide you with the loudest listening > > level you might ever use, > > without distortion.. > > > > Now, here's my question. Are you more apt to > > receive a clipped signal by > > turning the Head Unit volume up high using 4 volt > > preouts, or by turning the > > amp's gains up high, producing the same ultimate > > listening volume. ie, > > there's 2 ways to get to the same loud volume: with > > a relative higher HU > > volume setting with a lower amp gain setting, or > > vice versa. Assuming a > > given high listening volume, is it best reached with > > more HU volume and less > > amp gain, more Amp gain and less HU volume, or a > > mixture of both somewhere > > in the upper middle? Thanks. > > > > _____________________________ > > Paul Elliott > > '99 Alpine White M3 <25000 mi Forged M dbl-spokes; > > Rotex pads; Dinan Stage > > II Supercharger; Stygar Short Shift kit and Clutch > > Stop; Skaggs Pedals; > > X-brace; Sound by Kenwood Excelon, Polk, JL Audio > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************************************** > > Digest Commands > > UNSUBSCRIBE DIGEST - (in subject line) unsubscribes > > you from the digest. > > DIR - sends a listing of files available in the > > list's GET directory. > > GET filename1.ext,filename2.ext - sends the > > requested file(s). > > > > To issue a command/request to the server: > > Send a message with the command you wish executed as > > the > > subject of the message. > > > ************************************************************** > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > > ************************************************************* > List Commands > UNSUBSCRIBE - (in subject line) unsubscribes you from the mailing list. > DIR - sends a listing of files available in the list's GET directory. > GET filename1.ext,filename2.ext - sends the requested file(s). > > To issue a command/request to the server: > Send a message with the command you wish executed as the > subject of the message. > ************************************************************* > >