-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: [E36M3] Re: M3 Totalled at Summit - from Chris Salter
Top
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 21:42:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Salter <errsomeone@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: M3 Totalled at Summit All, One quick note on safety with a compromise car. If you have a roll bar, which I strongly sugest, it could also _cause_ injury on the street. About 2 months ago I totalled my 97 M3 when I met a truck, a wall, a truck, and another wall on a highway. Thankfully, I walked away with just cuts and bruses, but the car was written off. Well, the seat broke when I met the first wall and I was tossed around the car abit in the following impacts. I use an E30 M3 with roll bar and etc for the track. Looking at the way the 97 broke, if there was a roll bar I probably would not have walked away. A dedicated car for the track is more than alot of people can commit. But be aware that even saftey devices can be dangerous too. Take it from me, the seat in an M3 can and will break if put into the correct situation. Even without being tall, or the seat back all the way, you CAN hit the bar. -Chris E30 ///M3 Faux EVO E36 ///M3 Silver E36 ///M3 YELLOW!! (RIP) --- Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> wrote: > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 13:47:37 -0500 > From: Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> > Subject: Re: M3 Totalled at Summit > > Some thoughts engendered by the Summit Point > incident and various posts on > the subject: > > - There have been several comments mentioning proper > safety equipment for > 10/10ths driving. Does anyone here think that > intentionally driving 10/10ths > at a driving school is a good idea? Ever? > If so I have just two words for you: Club Racing. > (BTW, I define 10/10ths in a relative way: the > combination of a given driver > and car. Your 6/10ths might be faster in absolute > terms than my 9/10ths.) > > - Having a dedicated track car is no doubt a fine > idea, especially if you > have the necessary financial (first > cost/maintenance/alternative daily > driver/etc.) and logistical (storage/trailer?) > flexibility. But it also > takes away some of the objectives of the school: to > learn how to drive your > street car at higher limits than otherwise practical > or legally possible, > and so become a safer and more skilful driver. > > - Using a roll bar with 4/5 point harness (and of > course helmet) will > undoubtedly increase passive safety for track use. > It will also render your > rear seat unusable for passenger occupancy the rest > of the time. > On the street the bar, when used without helmet and > harness, may also > compromise front seat safety unacceptably. This will > be worse for tall > drivers, whose seat position can put their > unprotected head close to the > bar, but may not be much of an issue at all for > short drivers. It'll tend to > be better for coupés, but worse for sedans, due to > the respective B pillar > positions. > > - The argument is sometimes advanced that a 4 (or 5) > point harness should > not be used without a roll bar or cage, since in > case of a rollover with > severe roof collapse (a la Sears Point) the > occupants may be held upright > and suffer serious spinal injuries. In 5 years I've > never seen or heard of > any such occurrence at a school, although the > possibility warrants > discussion. A couple of club chapters now mandate > using only the stock > lap/diagonal belts if there's no rollover > protection. However it's also > absolutely certain that a 4 point harness offers > superior protection in any > other accident mode than total roof collapse. > What's the probability of a rollover with severe > roof collapse vs. that of > all other accident modes combined? Where is the line > of compromise drawn, > and who should make that decision? > > - With regard to rollovers, there may be some > regional variations at play. > The tracks I've driven on here in the Midwest are: > Gingerman > Grattan > Indianapolis Raceway Park > Mid Ohio > Michigan International Speedway > Putnam Park > Road America > Of these only MIS and RA even generate 5th gear > speeds in an M3, and at MIS > the higher speeds are out on the NASCAR bowl, which > is wide and predictable > (well, it is if you're not drafting nose-to-tail in > the pack at 180 mph, > anyway!). Obviously I'm assuming that rollovers > severe enough to collapse > the roof totally tend to require the energy of > higher speeds. > Are the conditions and the risk trade-offs different > at Summit Point, Road > Atlanta, Laguna Seca and others, with their higher > speed corners? Maybe so. > > My point in all this is that running a street car at > a race track is a > safety compromise from the very start. There are few > absolute answers, and > every participant needs to make his or her own > informed and well-considered > decisions about safety. > > Having said which, maybe I'll see some of you at > Motor City's school at MIS > the weekend after July 4th. > > Drive safely. > > Neil > 96 M3 > > > ************************************************************* > 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 to the email address > e36m3@bmw-m.net. > ************************************************************* > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. JTD strut tower torque specs - from Shelhart2@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:34:27 EDT From: Shelhart2@aol.com Subject: JTD strut tower torque specs I just rec'd my JTD Strut tower brace from a lister (thanx S Lafredo). Anyone know the proper torque specs for the shock tower nuts? TIA. Shel Hart
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: [E36M3] JTD strut tower torque specs - from Chester Wong
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:40:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] JTD strut tower torque specs I believe it's 24Nm ...that's NEWTON METERS..not foot pounds. Chester --- Shelhart2@aol.com wrote: > I just rec'd my JTD Strut tower brace from a lister (thanx S Lafredo). > > Anyone know the proper torque specs for the shock tower nuts? TIA. > > Shel Hart ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: [E36M3] Sway Bars - Advice and Input - from Chris Teague
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:49:42 -0700 From: "Chris Teague" <cteague@home.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Sway Bars - Advice and Input Peter, I have the Dinan front bar. It is actually 7/8" (0.875") which is about 22.2mm. Not a big deal, but it is slightly smaller than my stock 23mm (0.907") bar, since I have a 97. The length is about 1/2" shorter. When I plugged all that into the formula, the stiffness of the Dinan bar on full soft is about the same as a stock 96 up bar. I think the 95's have a 22mm front bar, so it would be ever so slightly stiffer. The only advantage of the Dinan front bar is that it is adjustable with 4 different hole settings each side. On full stiff, it should be equivalent to a 27mm bar with the stock end length. I have mine set to about a 25mm bar of stock length. So you probably could just buy the rear bar if you wanted to experiment. I only have the front bar since that's all that is legal for SCCA AS. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: <peter@guagenti.com> To: "E36M3" <e36m3@bmw-m.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 3:25 PM Subject: [E36M3] Sway Bars - Advice and Input > On a related note, the Dinan set-up is 22mm fr/22mm rr. It would seem that you > could potentially not run the Dinan front and just run the stiffer Dinan rear. > Is the length of the Dinan front bar any different (at it's softest setting) > then the factory bar? If not, what would be the advantage of installing it?
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. SF Bay M3 List is moving - from Bora Akyol
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:09:58 -0700 From: Bora Akyol <akyol@akyol.org> Subject: SF Bay M3 List is moving SF Bay M3 list is moving to http://www.topica.com/lists/sfbaym3/ I tried MSN communities but this one seems better. This is an announcement list and I think I managed to move all of the previous subscribers over. Bora
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. RE: UUC bar (was WTB strut tower bar) - from DrDan976@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:10:16 EDT From: DrDan976@aol.com Subject: RE: UUC bar (was WTB strut tower bar) I was wondering what happened to their Catia designed strut tower bar introduced as a concept about a year ago. Sound like a Rouge to me. Dan Wang 95 M3 with the BMW Motorsport Bar with no dimple :)
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: UUC bar (was WTB strut tower bar) - from Neil Maller
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:54:02 -0500 From: Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> Subject: Re: UUC bar (was WTB strut tower bar) on 7/11/01 6:25 PM, Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> wrote: > Well, it depends on what you mean by "fitment is perfect" and "it is a nice > bar". Look at the foam under your hood. Is it badly compressed in certain > areas? This is from the fact that the design of the bar places many > components very high up. Of course, they'll tell you that it's one of the > lowest among its competition, but if brand A sucks, and the UUC bar is just > slightly less sucky, well then, how good is it? Early UUC Strut Barbarians sat a little high. They fit fine on most cars, were marginal on others, and interfered with the hood on a very few. This was due to car-to-car build variations. Later versions used a lower profile "half-moon" piece - the part that sits on top of the full circle plates - to give more clearance under the hood. You can tell the two versions apart by looking at the allen bolts that hold the half-moon. If the heads of the bolts are fully recessed into the half-moon, then it's the original tall version. If the allen bolt heads protrude slightly, then you have the lower profile version. My car fell into the marginal category. I had the early model brace, and worked with UUC to fix the problem with a revised version, to my entire satisfaction. I've found my UUC brace to be an excellent product, and from the one I've seen believe the JTD brace is also very well designed and made. However as far as I know neither one is produced any more. Neil 96 M3
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: UUC bar (was WTB strut tower bar) - from LoweSeaton@aol.com
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:20:41 EDT From: LoweSeaton@aol.com Subject: Re: UUC bar (was WTB strut tower bar) I have the JTD strut bar on my '95 M3. It too compresses the hood foam a little. And my hood bulged when I first put it on. However, after couple of weeks, the foam took a permanent set and my hood does not bulge anymore. I still have to be careful to route the cruise control cable around the shock tower mount or my hood will still bulge. Talk about low - it's as low as you can go. The JTD bar is so low that it rubs on the plastic engine cover. A friend of mine removed his JTD bar because of this rubbing. I doubt if any strut bar is going to be perfect. Remember only the '95 LTW ostensibly came with a strut tower bar. But the LTW has NO hood foam insulation. That eliminates your problem with hood bulging. Lowell Seaton '95 M3 - slight hood bulging Dallas, Texas BMW CCA #131505
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: [E36M3] Sway Bars - Advice and Input - from LoweSeaton@aol.com
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:40:19 EDT From: LoweSeaton@aol.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] Sway Bars - Advice and Input Chris writes: > I think the 95's have a 22mm front bar ... > <snip> >I only have the front bar since that's all that is legal for SCCA AS. The '95 M3 has a 22.5 mm front bar vs. 23 mm for '96+ M3's On the rear, the '95 has a 19 mm bar vs. 20 mm for '96+ M3's. I know the rear bars are perfectly interchangeable. I have the '96+ rear bar on my M3. What I can't remember is whether the front bars are interchangeable? I don't think so but I can't remember why not. Anybody know? Lowell Seaton '95 M3 with 1 mm larger rear bar <shuzz> Don't tell the autocross rules committee :-)
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: UUC bar (was WTB strut tower bar) - from S Lafredo
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 07:27:05 -0400 From: S Lafredo <slafredo@fast.net> Subject: Re: UUC bar (was WTB strut tower bar) The engine tilts down as you move back toward the windshield. The LTW bar sits further back where the engine is lower and therefore clears the engine cover and hood. On a E36 w/ASC+T you HAVE to place the bar further forward. Since you do not want to hit the hood you rub the engine cover. You can lower the engine cover if you remove it and have some of the front nut insert shaved down. Most hood interference _I_ have seen is at the end caps not the bar portion. The JTD bar end caps though they compress the foam (all bars do) did not compromise the hood itself. My old Dinan bar actually compress the hood foam the length of the bar. S On Thursday, July 12, 2001, at 12:25 AM, LoweSeaton@aol.com wrote: > Remember only the '95 LTW > ostensibly came with a strut tower bar. But the LTW has NO hood foam > insulation. That eliminates your problem with hood bulging.