-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Helmet purchase - from Ed Tang
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:18:01 -0800 (PST) From: Ed Tang <etangf1@yahoo.com> Subject: Helmet purchase Scott wrote: "From: "Scott Yu" <scott@ditherdog.com> What are the inherent differences between helmets used for autos and motorcycles? Helmets aren't cheap, if I can get away with only buying one,I'd be a happy camper ;)" A motorcycle helmet is not the same. I believe the main difference is that a auto racing helmet has fire retardent material in it. Any takers on other differences. For some driving schools, they might give you a hard time with M rated helmets rather than the SA rated ones. I believe for most venues, an SA 95 is the minimum requirement now that the SA 2000's are out in the rulebooks. I am karting this season so I have a Bieffe Formula GP helmet that is rated SA 95. It was pretty expensive but I think it's well worth it. Due to the recent tragedy at Daytona, I am seriously considering an SA 2000 helmet with the HANS system since I will be going to a Skip Barber Formula Dodge school sometime late summer. I would go for an SA 2000 helmet so that you can use it for a while, granted you don't drop the helmet or bang it in any way. If there is an incident or the helmet gets too old, please replace the helmet. You lose the impact absorbing protection you bought it in the first place for. Ed Tang 95 Cosmos M3 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: Batteries - from Carguymb@aol.com
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:57:54 EST From: Carguymb@aol.com Subject: Re: Batteries Lowell, I'm no EE either, and I was corrected about the stock group size (apparently it's 92, not 91). That said, for those interested, I was faced with a dying battery and not much chance to do research (I'd hoped to put in an Optima, but didn't have the time/will to resolve the hold down issues on my daily driver). I ended up going to Pep Boys (1/2 a mile from my house) after eyeballing the variety of hold downs in the M3, and noted the batteries that had terminal/vent tube/hold down provisions that matched, and measured them against the Group 92 and the hold down provisions. Group 48 matched the shortest hold down (nice and tight, BTW), and required no modification to vent tube or cables. The Pep Boys battery (by Exide, I think, who also own GNB these days, FWIW) had a higher CCA's than stock (690 @ 0°F vs, I recall 650 or so), is a maintainable type, and cost 2/3 of the lowest dealer price I found in the three phone calls I made (also a 10 mile drive away). I was pleasantly surprised that it fit as well as hoped, and to learn (from checking my Z3) that Group 48 is a valid BMW size. Best of all, from very slow cranking (so bad, it lost the radio coding each time I started it), I now have a starter that leaps into action readily. BTW, on a VW GTI I'd owned previously, I bought it used with an Interstate already installed, and sold the car with the same battery still (apparently) working well, maintenance free, 6-1/2 years later. I was impressed, and would have bought another Interstate if I'd been able to get my hands on one conveniently at a weekend. So that's my datapoint. No insight on maintenance free versus not, or OEM battery life vs aftermarket (My M3 was used, and I don't know if the battery was previously replaced). I'll leave that to the EE's on the list to resolve. Martin Bullen '95 M3 '97 Z3 2.8 In a message dated 2/19/01 10:21:25 PM, LoweSeaton writes: >Martin, > >Thanks for your comments. I'm not an electrical engineer so my knowledge >of automotive batteries runs out quick. I originally wanted to get a cheap >maintenance free battery because I dislike adding water to my battery every >6 months. But I think none other than J'A'P' said a "maintenance free" >battery is a bad idea. > >I found a web site that described automotive batteries in a sensible fashion >to me. Would some of you electrical engineers check it out and see if >the guy is all wet or not? > >http://www.landiss.com/battery.htm > >This guy says there are 3 broad types of automotive batteries - 1) lead/antimony > 2) lead/calcium and 3) lead/antimony/calcium. The first type is the >one originally supplied in the M3. The last two are "maintenance free" >batteries. > >Apparently the different types of batteries need to be recharged at different >voltages. The lead/antimony needs about 13.8-14.0 V, lead/calcium needs >14.8 V, and lead/antimony/calcium needs 14.3-14.8 V. I'm assuming BMW >uses a 13.8 V alternator. Supposedly it is not good to recharge a "maintenance >free" battery at the lower 13.8 V so........ that led me to buy another >"add water every 6 months" battery. > >I bought my battery about 1.5 years ago. There may be a larger selection >of lead/antimony batteries to choose from now, but back then here in Dallas >I could not find another one. I must have driven 200 miles and spent $100 >looking for a "cheaper" replacement battery. Some times it doesn't pay >to be cheap LOL > >I found a group 49 battery from Interstate Batteries that might have fit. > It had a lot more CCA than the stock Douglas battery. However, the vent >tube was on the front instead of the side. Interstate did provide this >extension so you could run the tube up and over the battery but my analness >trait didn't like that solution. > >I then found a group 48 battery from Battery Plus. It had the right vent >location but it was just 10 CCA less than the OEM M3 battery. Battery >Plus listed a group 49 battery which would have fit and had much more CCA >than the OEM battery but it was not available in Dallas. Apparently Battery >Plus did not have enough demand for it here in the south. Our winters >are not that cold. I'm sure the slightly lower CCA battery would have >worked fine for me. > >The Interstate battery was about the same price as the BMW battery with >club discount. The Battery Plus battery (made by GNB I think) was quite >a bit cheaper - about $85. Oh! I called all three of the dealers in the >Dallas area. The price ranged from $115 to $180!! The best price was >the closest dealer to me. I just wish I had started there. :-) > >You are correct. There are three hold down locations for the battery. > But I would like to see somebody try to use the largest setting. You >would have to paper thin fingers! I think most of the group 48 batteries >would probably use the smallest hold down. The OE group 91 uses the middle >position. > >This was the other reason I chose the BMW battery. I was assured it would >bolt down tight. I've done BMW CCA driving schools. They always check >to see if the battery is secured. You can be denied on the track if your >battery is loose. They have always allowed my stock hold down. I did >not want to bother jury rigging a hold down for a different sized battery. > It is one less thing to worry about when I go to driving schools. > >Where did you buy your battery? I'm sure others would like to have an >alternative. > >Lowell Seaton >'95 M3 >Dallas, Texas
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. [E36M3] Helmet suggestions? - from Dorffer, Rich
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:57:44 -0500 From: "Dorffer, Rich" <RDORFFER@CleIndians.com> Subject: [E36M3] Helmet suggestions? This is always a well versed topic on this list and I probably should not weigh in but I will. I have two top-notch Arai helmets (Quantum e). They are motorcycle rated helmets (M-95). They are light, comfortable and have great visibility. They also have Kevlar reinforced shells. They passed both inspections at Mid-Ohio and Nelson Ledges for the BMW CCA schools. Actually, the one I went to in October with the Buckeye Chapter, the guy inspecting the helmet immediately looked at it, said it was an M-95 rated helmet before even looking inside it, commended me on my choice of head gear and said it was considerably more fit than the crap most of the newer drivers bring. I mentioned the motorcycle rating and he looked at me and kind of chuckled and said he knew the differences and it was really the least of my worries. I already knew this and will elaborate below. I do understand the differences between the M and the SA ratings but I do not really care. I was nailed by a car (along with a prior girlfriend) while riding my motorcycle (a CBR 600 at that time) and we were both wearing Arai helmets. Needless to say, both of our heads had the luxury of impacting hard, unforgiving objects more than once and the helmets performed amazingly. Those helmets were retired after that but they barely looked like they had bounced off a Mercury Sable or the pavement for that matter (other than the paint damage). I know, the M rated helmets do not have fire protection. To be honest, if I have a fire in my car at the track during a driving school, I probably have much bigger problems than whether my helmet has fire protection (like no roll bar, no six point harness, no fire extinguisher, no fire suit since I am probably going to be wearing jeans and a long sleeve shirt, etc.) I think at this point you can figure out what my opinion is but I will clarify. I would buy the best fitting, most comfortable helmet out there which functions properly (visor, straps, etc.) so you use it and you use it properly whether you are on the track with your car or on the street with your bike. If funds allow, I would buy the best of both types. If not, I would buy the single best helmet. If I had $500 for the protect the head fund, I would much rather buy the best $500 one that fits the criteria I already mentioned than two cheaper $250 ones (one with a SA rating and one with an M rating) which may not fit as well, I was reluctant to wear, did not use quality components, etc. An unprotected head is your worst bet. Regards, Rich - I also have an SA rated Simpson helmet just in case an inspector does not see it the same way I do but I prefer to wear the Arais over it any day of the week.
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. [E36M3] More A032R questions - from twisty M3
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:17:14 -0800 From: "twisty M3" <twistym3@hotmail.com> Subject: [E36M3] More A032R questions I too run stock/staggered wheels and am debating on using the A032Rs as a street/track combo tire. Would there be any reason to use anything other than standard air pressure recommendations on the 235/40-17s from front to back to accomadate the different sized rims? Also, it seems as though a lot of the R-compound tires are designed to work best with certain amounts of neg. camber, etc. Anyone know how the Yoko A032Rs or Toyo RA-1s would compare (i.e. which is better?) for someone (i.e. Me) running apx. -1.7° up front and apx. -1.4° in the rear? Thanks! Jonathan L. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Helmet Choices - from John Van Houten
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:51:53 -0600 From: "John Van Houten" <jvanhouten@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Helmet Choices From the Snell Memorial Foundation Website (www.smf.org) What are the differences between the SA and M standards? SA Standard was designed for auto racing while M Standard was for motorcycling and other motorsports. There are three major differences between them: 1. SA standard requires flammability test while the M standard does not; 2. SA standard allows narrower visual field than M standard (Some SA helmets may not be street legal); 3. SA standard has rollbar impact test while M standard does not. Of course the helmet needs to fit, but I feel the SA standard is better for drivers schools than an M, certainly if you have a rollbar. No matter how careful you are, you never know when someone may dump coolant in a turn or a deer may run in front of you. I've seen both. Make your own choice appropriately. I'd be willing to bet that all of us have way more $ invested in our heads than our cars. John www.jvanhouten.com HANS ordered 2 weeks ago...
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Fuel Economy - from Wayne Miller
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:14:23 -0500 From: "Wayne Miller" <m3@waynemiller.com> Subject: Fuel Economy Lowell wrote: I usually get 23.5 or 23.8 or 23.3 MPG. But I also see 24.2, 24.0, 23.1, 22.8, 22.6 MPG, and lower :-) My current reading is 18.6 MPG! My comment: 24 MPG! I don't think that I have ever averaged 24 MPG, even on tanks that were all highway. My usual mileage is about 20 with highs in the 21s and lows in the 18s or even 16s. I was happy that my current tank, with the new 6 speed and a lot of highway miles was in the 23 MPG range. I know that I tend to drive a bit on the speedier side (doesn't everyone hit 100+ on the way to work each day?) but even when I torture myself and cruise at 75, I don't think that I used to get 24. As a side note, I did see an average of just over 25 yesterday at the start of a tank that was virtually all highway miles in 6th gear. Poor mileage in NYC traffic, -Wayne
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: OBC Curiosity - from Neil Maller
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:27:54 -0500 From: Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> Subject: Re: OBC Curiosity on 2/20/01 12:23 AM, LoweSeaton@aol.com wrote: > My question is why do I get 23.1, 23.3, or 23.5 MPG but never any of the > intermediate values? It will be steady at 23.3 MPG for miles then suddenly > jump to 23.5 MPG And it can't just be the even number decimal places are not > used because I get 24.2 and 22.6 MPG readings. Here's a wild ass guess completely unsupported by research or math, since I'm too lazy to construct a spreadsheet to test it: The OBC keeps track of fuel consumption in metric units - which would normally be expressed as litres per 100 kilometers - with some given resolution, probably 0.1 litres. For us it then converts to mpg and rounds to the nearest 0.1 mpg, and that's just how the numbers turn out based on the metric values and conversion factors. Whaddya think? Neil 96 M3
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: [E36M3] Helmet Choices - from Bora Akyol
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:28:33 -0800 From: Bora Akyol <akyol@akyol.org> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Helmet Choices The M rated helmets are crash tested for hitting the pavement etc, don't you think that they will be strong enough to handle the roll bar. Bora > From: "John Van Houten" <jvanhouten@ix.netcom.com> > Reply-To: "John Van Houten" <jvanhouten@ix.netcom.com> > Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:53:30 -0600 > To: E36M3 <e36m3@bmw-m.net> > Subject: [E36M3] Helmet Choices > > Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:51:53 -0600 > From: "John Van Houten" <jvanhouten@ix.netcom.com> > Subject: Helmet Choices > >> From the Snell Memorial Foundation Website (www.smf.org) > > What are the differences between the SA and M standards? > SA Standard was designed for auto racing while M Standard was for > motorcycling and other motorsports. There are three major differences > between them: > 1. SA standard requires flammability test while the M standard does > not; > 2. SA standard allows narrower visual field than M standard (Some SA > helmets may not be street legal); > 3. SA standard has rollbar impact test while M standard does not. > > Of course the helmet needs to fit, but I feel the SA standard is better for > drivers schools than an M, certainly if you have a rollbar. No matter how > careful you are, you never know when someone may dump coolant in a turn or a > deer may run in front of you. I've seen both. > > Make your own choice appropriately. I'd be willing to bet that all of us > have way more $ invested in our heads than our cars. > > John > www.jvanhouten.com > HANS ordered 2 weeks ago... > > > ************************************************************* > 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. > ************************************************************* > >
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: [E36M3] Fuel Economy - from Mark Radelow
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:29:41 -0000 From: "Mark Radelow" <radelow@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Fuel Economy Without fail I get between 19 and 20 MPG per tank. One time I drove to Buttonwillow and back and got overall 25mpg. I was pretty happy about that. The best is my first tank of gas when I got the car was gone in about 220 miles....Gee I wonder why???? ;) Mark From: "Wayne Miller" <m3@waynemiller.com> Reply-To: "Wayne Miller" <m3@waynemiller.com> To: E36M3 <e36m3@bmw-m.net> Subject: [E36M3] Fuel Economy Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:23:30 -0600 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:14:23 -0500 From: "Wayne Miller" <m3@waynemiller.com> Subject: Fuel Economy Lowell wrote: I usually get 23.5 or 23.8 or 23.3 MPG. But I also see 24.2, 24.0, 23.1, 22.8, 22.6 MPG, and lower :-) My current reading is 18.6 MPG! My comment: 24 MPG! I don't think that I have ever averaged 24 MPG, even on tanks that were all highway. My usual mileage is about 20 with highs in the 21s and lows in the 18s or even 16s. I was happy that my current tank, with the new 6 speed and a lot of highway miles was in the 23 MPG range. I know that I tend to drive a bit on the speedier side (doesn't everyone hit 100+ on the way to work each day?) but even when I torture myself and cruise at 75, I don't think that I used to get 24. As a side note, I did see an average of just over 25 yesterday at the start of a tank that was virtually all highway miles in 6th gear. Poor mileage in NYC traffic, -Wayne ************************************************************* 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. ************************************************************* _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: [E36M3] Fuel Economy - from Donna Seeley
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:42:36 -0800 From: Donna Seeley <dseeley@infoasis.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Fuel Economy Not much to do on Hwy 5 but play with the OBC... <g> My '95 doesn't have a computer, but there's not much to do during fillups but running calculations of mpg...<g> Mine is always 19-21mpg; my 35-mi commute is all highway, and the auto's 5th gear is like a manual's 6th - 2700rpm @ 80mph, 3200 rpm @ 100mph. Donna ------- 88 M3, "Guido" FWIW, OBC says 26mpg @ 80mph on Hwy 5 95 330isA, super-commuter > Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:29:41 -0000 > From: "Mark Radelow" <radelow@hotmail.com> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] Fuel Economy > > Without fail I get between 19 and 20 MPG per tank. One time I drove to > Buttonwillow and back and got overall 25mpg. I was pretty happy about that. > The best is my first tank of gas when I got the car was gone in about 220 > miles....Gee I wonder why???? ;) > > Mark > > > From: "Wayne Miller" <m3@waynemiller.com> > Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:14:23 -0500 > > Lowell wrote: > > I usually get 23.5 or 23.8 or 23.3 MPG. But I also see 24.2, 24.0, > 23.1, 22.8, 22.6 MPG, and lower :-) My current reading is 18.6 MPG! > > My comment: > 24 MPG! I don't think that I have ever averaged 24 MPG, even on tanks > that were all highway. My usual mileage is about 20 with highs in the > 21s and lows in the 18s or even 16s. > > Poor mileage in NYC traffic, > > -Wayne >
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: [E36M3] Fuel Economy - from Bora Akyol
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:42:30 -0800 From: Bora Akyol <akyol@akyol.org> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Fuel Economy I get about 18.4 mpg here in Silicon Valley commute. Bora