-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re :Oops, I Did It Again and The Check Is In The Mail - from Jeff Thompson
Top
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:28:33 -0400 From: Jeff Thompson <jthompson@telco.com> Subject: Re :Oops, I Did It Again and The Check Is In The Mail Donna asks: >Jeff, >Does that mean you don't buy collision coverage to pay for your own >mistakes? That really does depend. I have collision now since I am still paying off my car loan. Whether or not I continue it or increase the deductable further depends on what I judge the car is worth and how much money I have. When I was driving a '73 2002, I didn't bother with collison because I would save the total cost of the car in 18 months. But, IMHO, collision for the street and a track situation are totally different animals. Analogy time: You give the same toy to two different kids, and the toy is both fun and durable. One kid plays with it in a fairly normal way, and has a lot of fun with it. The other kid uses the durable toy like a hammer to break other toys, throws it down the stairs, and generally abuses it a lot more. When the toys break (because they will eventually), 1. which kid are you more likely to give a new toy to? 2. If you were in the toy insurance business, and didn't have time to observe every child with the toy, wouldn't it be a decent assumption that these toys break a lot and you should charge a bit of money to everybody who owns them? That's just my view of it. Obviously, I have nothing against people who track their cars. I hope they stay safe and get all the fun they want out of it. I just don't want to have to pay for it when somebody takes out 30 feet of armco and needs $19k worth of work done to their car. As Reid pointed out, it really is a strange double standard. Maybe there should be a middle ground where people who plan to attend schools could carry an additional line of coverage that was specifically for track incidents. It would be optional for those of us who don't track our cars, and if we did we would be out of luck if we bent it up. With the amount of money that some people spend for track time and related stuff, some extra insurance money probably wouldn't stop them from doing it. Or, as Reid also mentioned, maybe I should just track my car since it is covered. ;) -Jeff
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Drive Train loss? - from Paul Elliott
Top
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 13:19:47 -0400 From: "Paul Elliott" <elliott.paul@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Drive Train loss? Have we learned yet whether the approx 18% drivetrain loss, figured by dividing the rwhp value by .82 (reciprocol of 18%), or multiplying by 1.21, is correctly calculated as a percentage value, or, instead, should be calculated as a constant HP value? I always used to think that using a percentage was correct...I even remember where Jim C used to use this 18% value, but not too long ago, and I forget where, I came across a thread which put forth the idea that it was essentially ludicrous to assume that using a fixed percentage was the correct method to use in estimating crank HP from a Dyno pull. And, that the amount of HP lost wouldnt be very different whether the dyno had registered 200 rhwp, or 300 rwhp, ie, it would be more or less a fixed amount; not a fixed Percentage amount. Do we know any more about this, or is it still a question in your guys' eyes? Paul Elliott --------------------------------------------------------- '99 White M3; < 45K miles; Dinan stage II SC kit with 6" RMS crank pulley: 11 psi; AA Water/Methanol Injection; Fikse FM-10s; X-Brace; Dinan Koni Suspension; Stygar SS and Clutch Stop; Sound by Polk, Excelon, JLAudio
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Offset lower control arm bushings? - from GGray657@aol.com
Top
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 13:24:12 EDT From: GGray657@aol.com Subject: Offset lower control arm bushings? Anyone using offset control arm bushings? I know on the E30's is the thing to do for a cheap upgrade. Is it the same on the E36. Gary 95M3(upgrades in progress)
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. RE: '95 5-Spoke Wheels & Tires - from Greg Gantt
Top
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 15:02:10 -0400 From: Greg Gantt <ggantt@gantt-consulting.com> Subject: RE: '95 5-Spoke Wheels & Tires Would 245/40 SO3s fit on my 7.5" front wheels or do I have to run a 8-8.5" wheel? Greg
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. H&R Spacers - from ERogers005@aol.com
Top
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 15:52:52 EDT From: ERogers005@aol.com Subject: H&R Spacers Try Conversion Techniques in Oakland (Bigge St.). I don't have the phone # handy, but they carry just about everything we all like. Ed Rogers > Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:10:35 -0700 > From: Bob Lenarcik <lenarcik@pacbell.net> > Subject: Since we're on the subject of tire rubbing... > > > Just got a new set of tires and what do you know, they rub on the front > suspension (H&R c/o) even with a 5mm spacer. 8mm seems about right, but > I think the H&R 10mm spacers would be a better solution since they have > their own lip. Does anyone know of a SF Bay Area retailer that carries > H&R spacers? Thanks in advance. > >
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: [E36M3] Drive Train loss? - from Matt Henson
Top
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 13:16:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Henson <hensonator@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Drive Train loss? --- Paul Elliott <elliott.paul@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Have we learned yet whether the approx 18% > drivetrain loss, figured by > dividing the rwhp value by .82 (reciprocol of 18%), > or multiplying by 1.21, > is correctly calculated as a percentage value, or, > instead, should be > calculated as a constant HP value? > > I always used to think that using a percentage was > correct...I even remember > where Jim C used to use this 18% value, but not too > long ago, and I forget > where, I came across a thread which put forth the > idea that it was > essentially ludicrous to assume that using a fixed > percentage was the > correct method to use in estimating crank HP from a > Dyno pull. And, that > the amount of HP lost wouldnt be very different > whether the dyno had > registered 200 rhwp, or 300 rwhp, ie, it would be > more or less a fixed > amount; not a fixed Percentage amount. > > Do we know any more about this, or is it still a > question in your guys' > eyes? Paul, It's a little of both. Some driveline losses, such as the churning of thick oils, seal friction, etc, only depend on RPM and not applied torque. So they are fixed. But some losses are proportional to torque. For example, the force on the bearings of the shafts that holds the gears together may increase with the torque. So the loss there will increase with torque. Any microscopic sliding of the gears as they mesh will also cause friction (though the oil between the gears should reduce the friction) which will also be proportional to torque. I don't know what the loss proportions are; I suppose you'd need to dyno an engine at different torque curves and then compare that to the real wheel dyno results to separate the RPM-only loss from the loss that's proportional to torque. -Matt __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. RE: [E36M3] Re :Oops, I Did It Again and The Check Is In The Mail - from Jason Jensen
Top
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 16:59:31 -0400 From: "Jason Jensen" <jasonjensen75@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Re :Oops, I Did It Again and The Check Is In The Mail My two bits: 1 - Driver's events can't be compared to using your car as a hammer, that's called a Demolition Derby...;) 2 - When the cars break, what usually breaks (engine, suspension, trannys, money shifts, etc) is not covered by insurance. 3 - No allowance is given for the skills gained by the kid playing rough with his toy. Said skills allowing Kid B to snatch his toy from the fireplace while Kid A stands there frozen, not knowing what to do.(It's a stretch, but so is the analogy) :) Insurance companies don't do anything out of the goodness of their hearts; if their studies show that it will benefit their bottom line they will do it (as will almost any company). Think of it this way, one street accident avoided could pay for a track incident many, many, many times over. An accident on the road typically involves multiple cars, hospital visits, hospital stays, major surgery, and lawsuits among other things. An accident on a track involves 1 car (everyone responsible for their own car), and usually no/minor injuries mostly due to safety equipment. Your insurance premiums aren't going to driver's events...They are covering stolen cars, fraud, and soccer mom SUV fender benders that cost 5k for a 5mph pole tap in the grocery store parking lot.... YMMV Jason ----Original Message----- From: Jeff Thompson [mailto:jthompson@telco.com] Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 12:34 PM To: E36M3 Subject: [E36M3] Re :Oops, I Did It Again and The Check Is In The Mail Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:28:33 -0400 From: Jeff Thompson <jthompson@telco.com> Subject: Re :Oops, I Did It Again and The Check Is In The Mail Analogy time: You give the same toy to two different kids, and the toy is both fun and durable. One kid plays with it in a fairly normal way, and has a lot of fun with it. The other kid uses the durable toy like a hammer to break other toys, throws it down the stairs, and generally abuses it a lot more. When the toys break (because they will eventually), 1. which kid are you more likely to give a new toy to? 2. If you were in the toy insurance business, and didn't have time to observe every child with the toy, wouldn't it be a decent assumption that these toys break a lot and you should charge a bit of money to everybody who owns them? That's just my view of it. Obviously, I have nothing against people who track their cars. I hope they stay safe and get all the fun they want out of it. I just don't want to have to pay for it when somebody takes out 30 feet of armco and needs $19k worth of work done to their car. As Reid pointed out, it really is a strange double standard. Maybe there should be a middle ground where people who plan to attend schools could carry an additional line of coverage that was specifically for track incidents. It would be optional for those of us who don't track our cars, and if we did we would be out of luck if we bent it up. With the amount of money that some people spend for track time and related stuff, some extra insurance money probably wouldn't stop them from doing it.
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re :Oops, I Did It Again and The Check Is In The Mail - from Dave Kelley
Top
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:36:13 -0400 From: "Dave Kelley" <d.kelley@usa.net> Subject: Re :Oops, I Did It Again and The Check Is In The Mail I don't think you have the facts to support any kind of reasonable argument. I suspect, without facts, that the number of insured vehicles that participate in high performance driving schools is a very small fractional percent of the total vehicles insured. I doubt, without any facts, that the cost of claims for driver school incidents is more than a tiny fraction of a percent of all claims paid. In other words, it doesn't make any difference. So pay your premiums and if you want to attend a drivers school, which I highly recommend, do so. If you don't want to, don't. But don't rag on someone who had an unfortunate incident and had insurance that covered it. It would be a sad day for us all if insurance companies stopped coverage at drivers schools. Dave > Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:28:33 -0400 > From: Jeff Thompson <jthompson@telco.com> > Subject: Re :Oops, I Did It Again and The Check Is In The Mail > > Donna asks: > > >Jeff, > >Does that mean you don't buy collision coverage to pay for your own > >mistakes? > > That really does depend. I have collision now since I am still paying > off my car loan. Whether or not I continue it or increase the > deductable further depends on what I judge the car is worth and how much > money I have. When I was driving a '73 2002, I didn't bother with > collison because I would save the total cost of the car in 18 months. > > But, IMHO, collision for the street and a track situation are totally > different animals. Analogy time: > > You give the same toy to two different kids, and the toy is both fun and > durable. One kid plays with it in a fairly normal way, and has a lot > of fun with it. The other kid uses the durable toy like a hammer to > break other toys, throws it down the stairs, and generally abuses it a > lot more. When the toys break (because they will eventually), > > 1. which kid are you more likely to give a new toy to? > > 2. If you were in the toy insurance business, and didn't have time to > observe every child with the toy, wouldn't it be a decent assumption > that these toys break a lot and you should charge a bit of money to > everybody who owns them? > > That's just my view of it. Obviously, I have nothing against people > who track their cars. I hope they stay safe and get all the fun they > want out of it. I just don't want to have to pay for it when somebody > takes out 30 feet of armco and needs $19k worth of work done to their car. > > As Reid pointed out, it really is a strange double standard. Maybe > there should be a middle ground where people who plan to attend schools > could carry an additional line of coverage that was specifically for > track incidents. It would be optional for those of us who don't track > our cars, and if we did we would be out of luck if we bent it up. With > the amount of money that some people spend for track time and related > stuff, some extra insurance money probably wouldn't stop them from doing > it. > > Or, as Reid also mentioned, maybe I should just track my car since it is > covered. ;) > -Jeff > > > > ************************************************************* > 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. > ************************************************************* > > >
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: [E36M3] RE: '95 5-Spoke Wheels & Tires - from Dave Kelley
Top
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:37:35 -0400 From: "Dave Kelley" <d.kelley@usa.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] RE: '95 5-Spoke Wheels & Tires Check the specs on the tires from TireRack. But I believe the answer is no. > Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 15:02:10 -0400 > From: Greg Gantt <ggantt@gantt-consulting.com> > Subject: RE: '95 5-Spoke Wheels & Tires > > Would 245/40 SO3s fit on my 7.5" front wheels or do I have to run a 8-8.5" > wheel? > > Greg > > > > > ************************************************************* > 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. > ************************************************************* > > >
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: [E36M3] RE: '95 5-Spoke Wheels & Tires - from LoweSeaton@aol.com
Top
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:40:39 EDT From: LoweSeaton@aol.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] RE: '95 5-Spoke Wheels & Tires ggantt@gantt-consulting.com writes: > Would 245/40 SO3s fit on my 7.5" front wheels or do I have to run a 8-8.5" > wheel? > > Greg, According to Bridgestone's (Firestone's) web site, 245/40 S03's approved rim width is 8.0-9.5". See: http://www.bridgestonetire.com/dpp/index.asp But for practical purposes, it will work on a 7.5" rim. I am sure you won't be the first to try it. Lowell Seaton '95 M3 Dallas, Texas