[uucdigest] Thursday, January 9 2003 Volume 03 : Number 6007
_________________________________________________________________ | | Search the ARCHIVES: | http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] | | Visit Richard Nott's Ultimate BMW Database: | http://www.bmwdatabase.com | | For all available Digest commands including unsubscribe/subscribe, | visit the BMW UUC Digest page: http://www.uucdigest.com | | Send SUBMISSIONS to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Complaints? Send 'em to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you must. | Technical Problems? Send 'em to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |__________________________________________________________________ In this BMW UUC Digest: Re: [uuc] Alternator placement... [uuc] <36> M3 -- Brake Grinding Re: [uuc] Nashville or bust ..CCA Members (slightly WOB ?) [uuc] Effects of an aftermarket parts (pistons, cams) on emissions? Re: [uuc] Now alternator placement...was Brian Redman CSL video [uuc] RE: January Roundel [uuc] January Roundel and Oktoberfest 2002 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 23:05:14 -0600 From: Sean Cordone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] Alternator placement... Eurowerks wrote: >How can you say the engine runs it if it is driven by the drivetrain? >The explanation I think you are going to give is not valid. > Interesting reasoning. Since, the rear wheels are also driven by the drivetrain - what's the engine for again? KMS - Brett Anderson wrote: >Move the altenator to the rear. > >Why? > >If it doesn't acheive something, then Trans Am and GT-1 through 5 wouldn't do >it today. > >Reasons? > >1. Cooler (already mentioned) >2. Less direct draw on the crank (discussed, but no concensus reached) >3. Runs slower (also discussed, but not recognized correctly) >4. Weight distribution advantage > > The "talk about it" comment was sarcastic. This isn't a subject for "consensus" - the first law of thermodynamics isn't up for a vote. As I said, running the alternator at slower rotational speeds would reduce losses (improve efficiency) - that's fundamentally different than "making more power" as originally stated. But that can be achieved by changing the pulley diameter ratio, so alone it's no reason to move it to the back. "Runs slower" not recognized correctly? It was stated explicitly. Points 2 & 3 aren't distinct - power dissipated is power dissipated; regardless of where it occurs, there's less available for locomoting. Other, better reasons? Sure. The weight distribution advantage was already mentioned by an owner. You left that parenthetic comment out. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 00:53:11 -0500 From: "Tom Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] <36> M3 -- Brake Grinding Hi Folks - Long time no post... My '98 M3/4 has 70k on the clock, and the brakes are ready for an overhaul... I think... because I'm hearing and feeling a decent amount of rotor or pad roughness when braking. The pads on the car cheap garbage installed by the first owner (I bought the car certified preowned two years ago and the dealer confided that the owner had put some wierd low end pad on it). Two questions: Who know's where the definitive E36 M3 brake diagnosis-for-dummies faq is online ? (I already have the bently manual but I'm looking for more of a walk through ho-to). And, if I need to re-do the brakes... should I just (as Mike Miller suggests in the last roundel) upgrade to euro M3 rotors (cross drilled) and quality pads? or something else? My driving style is moderate to active (I have 5 schools under my belt... but none in the last 4 years), but I don't expect to get much if any track time anytime soon. Despite that, I would definitely like improve my stopping power... not at the cost of ridiculous amounts of brake dust mess mind you... but a reasonable step above the pep-boy garbage I have probably been putting up with. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Tom Newton NY Chapter 98 M3 Sharked -w- UUC Short Switchgear & 89 325i ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:58:47 -0600 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [uuc] Nashville or bust ..CCA Members (slightly WOB ?) Thanks Brett..... I didn't know how to say that without getting fired up. Nicely put. BTW, the date of the meeting is March 8-9 the *SAME* weekend most club racers will be at either Motorsport ranch, or Road Atlanta - Two BMW CCA Club races. So you won't see many/any clubracers there Bill, but thanks for the cash none-the-less! Jon ______________________________________________ Jon Siccardi Treehouse Racing www.treehouseracing.com ______________________________________________ - ----- Original Message ----- From: "KMS - Brett Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [uuc] Nashville or bust ..CCA Members (slightly WOB ?) > Hey Bill, > > Is this you're way of saying you'll run for the board at the next election? > > At least if you were a board member, you could quote facts, instead of > garbage. > > Tell us, what exactly *is* your agenda with this attempt to incite the masses > here? > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > BMW Special Tool Rentals > Pay per incident tech support > ----------------------------------------------------- > Brett Anderson > KMS > (440) 338 1650 > www.koalamotorsport.com > > OSS committee member > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "BMWBITS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Reading the BMW..space..CCA Executive Board meeting minutes for their > > last meeting (Avail on the club's website ) I see that the next mtg is > > scheduled for Nashville on March 8-9 . > > The last one of these mtgs I attended (Seattle , Sept 2001 ) was VERY > > poorly attended by 'the general membership' (AKA The Plebs ) .How'z > > about we try to create a leetle more interest and attendance at this > > upcoming one ?..Central location ,Nose-singing Capital of the World > > ..etc etc .. > > Remember ...last years BMW CCA Ofest LOST about $39,000 of members > > funds ...roughly $40 per attendee ??....and the board gets to vote that > > away (read the minutes folks !!..particularly the addenda ) and possibly > > do it again this year in Austin and next year in ...? And give $50,000 > > to the Club racing programme ....(900 registered racers , 400 active > > ..do the math ..) .What about the other members ?..$39k plus $50k would > > take a buck off the annual dues for ALL ,then let the Special Interests > > (whether a racing or a concours or an M3, 5, 6 or 7-series 'interest > > group' pay for their interest but under the aegis of the club ). > > I'm NOT trying to 'raise hell' ..just awareness .....There ARE 'Other > > Ways' to do things .. > > See you at the meeting ? (betcha it's a posh hotel !!..guess who pays > > ...except for YOUR parking !!) . > > > > PS YES , I have been a National VP of a different German car club .and > > we bought our own tickets . > > > > PPS with the advent of 'virtual meeting ' technology ..Is it really > > necessary to get nose-to-nose 4 times a year?. I've seen mega-million $ > > contracts done on video for 10 yrs or more . > > > > Comments off-digest please ...or at the meeting ?? > > > > Bill & Shirley Proud, > > Tennessee..wintertime!, Seattle..summertime . > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 22:42:46 -0800 From: "JS Nord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] Effects of an aftermarket parts (pistons, cams) on emissions? I'm contemplating a rebuild of my M30 engine in my 90 535i. I'd like to assess my risk of passing the local emissions tests (Seattle Metro area) based in possible modifications to the motor including cam and piston changes. Does anyone have a good suggestion on how to assess the emissions different mods will produce? TIA! Jeff 90 535i ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 01:42:06 -0500 From: "Michael McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] Now alternator placement...was Brian Redman CSL video think of it this way. running through first gear, instead of accelerating the alternator from 1000 to 8000 rpm, you accelerate it from 0 to 200. see where this is going? - -Michael McCoy - ----- Original Message ----- From: "JSN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:39 PM Subject: [uuc] Now alternator placement...was Brian Redman CSL video > Micheal, > > Can you explain how changing the location effects the power taken to run the > alternator? Does this have to do with the PTO now being behind the gearbox > (eg - gearing)? > > thx! > > Jeff > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 12:19 PM > Subject: Re: [uuc] Brian Redman CSL video > > > > From: "Dorffer, Rich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Bob says > > > > > http://www.endorphin.com/wheels/bmw_csl.html > > > > > > I just got around to watching this. Well worth the price of admission. > > Love the racing and the car. > > > > > > Check out the size of those Ate brakes...hmm...will these fit on my E36 > M3 > > :-) > > > > > > Also, is the alternator in the trunk? and does it run off of the final > > drive as opposed to directly to the motor? I would imagine this was done > for > > weight distribution purposes as opposed to packaging constraints in the > > engine bay? > > > > > > > alternator is probably off the rear drive shaft. This is common on race > cars > > as it then takes less power from the engine. not really a packging issue > to > > have it in the engine bay, but when directly on the engine, it takes more > > engine HP to turn it. > > > > -Michael McCoy > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:11:36 -0500 From: "Lowe, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] RE: January Roundel I just received my January Roundel in the mail yesterday. I usually get mine about 3 days before the month of issue. One advantage of living within about 60 miles of the printer. The rest of you should start seeing your copies soon. Don't forget to vote early, vote often. The inclusion of the ballots may have slowed the process some. Regards, Dan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:57:12 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [uuc] January Roundel and Oktoberfest 2002 With the tragic passing of the club's President, I must say I feel terribly disrespectful even attempting this posting today, since in light of his death it all seems so damned petty, but... The January Roundel just mailed out January 3rd - holiday delays pushing production back a bit at the printer. You should all see yours before the 21st (remember no postal service on the 20th). As always, if your issue goes missing (and not because you moved and forgot to tell us <G>) we'll gladly replace it. With respect to Oktoberfest 2002 - I have had a number of emails over the past 24-hours concerning Bill Proud's assertion: "Remember ... last years BMW CCA Ofest LOST about $39,000 of members funds ...roughly $40 per attendee ??....and the board gets to vote that away (read the minutes folks !!..particularly the addenda ) and possibly do it again this year in Austin and next year in ...?" and the ensuing firestorm concerning Kathy Lyle's response: "Oktoberfest lost money because we failed to meet our room guarantees, mainly because members chose to stay off the property to save money. It's my understanding that the host chapter negotiated those room guarantees because it enabled them to receive comp'd rooms for chapter members during the event. This negotiation will be handled by National in the future. and now Fred Iacino's assertion: From: Fred Iacino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Ofest comp rooms? > Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:41:46 -0800 > > Bob, you are correct that is not the way it happened. Please make it > clear to Bill Proud that the Rocky Mountain Chapter had nothing at all > to do with the Contract at Keystone the National Office negotated the > room rates, comp formula etc. So, here goes: 1. Mr. Bill - the club has not lost $39,000 of the member's money on Oktoberfest 2002. At the time Michel Potheau wrote his column, the budget reflected a number of -$37,105.89 being the amount reflected as of 9/30/2002. That figure does not reflect invoices outstanding, the expense reports that will almost surely arrive well into 2003, and sponsorship money that has not been collected. The Board, including one of the Event Chairs, Fred Iacino, developed in 2001 then accepted and voted to approve, a budgeted loss for the event of $24,950 recognizing going into it that there were several variables that had come into play after the inception of the event, - sometime in 1999 and the negotiation and signing of the contract with Keystone Resorts. 1. The economy was becoming increasingly iffy - not always a sign that Oktoberfest might have a low attendance...but it can be. 2. September 11th scared the hell out of all of us, and it was likely people who may have wanted to travel might now decide to stick close to home. 3. It became abundantly apparent that there was a plethora of housing available in spitting distance of Keystone and that many, many of the members intending to go were taking advantage of that rather than staying at Keystone. So, I must tell you, Bill - $39,000 is not an accurate figure and frankly it won't be until May, or after, until we know precisely what the deficit was. It will likely be considerably less than the $39,000 being bandied about. Historically, we either break-even or we take a loss on Oktoberfest. In 1997 and 2000 the event was quite profitable - so much so that in 2000 the three chapters hosting the event were able to give enormous donations to Make a Wish when the books were closed. Oktoberfest is our premier event and for some, a sort of family reunion. There are members who will never even consider attending Ofest yet love to read the coverage of the event in Roundel, and there are members who cannot imagine a year without Oktoberfest. Because it is traditionally a not very profitable event, do we just stop having it? As to the Board voting the loss away - we knew going into it, that for the reasons listed above it was very likely this Oktoberfest would be a loss. Would it have been more palitable/responsible for us to have forecast a highly unlikely profit? Bill, I am glad you've posted your "Nashville or Bust" challenge, and I hope those of you who are flirting with the idea of attending the upcoming meeting in Nashville, will take the time to do so. Members are always welcome to the open sessions of each Board Meeting. It's really more cost effective to conduct meetings here at the office - now that we have the space - but the Board chooses to travel to visit with Chapters, and it's so disappointing that hardly anyone from the chapters ever shows up to the meeting (we often do see a lot of members at the Saturday evening meal, but few at the actual meeting). By the way, the luxury hotel Bill has warned you we're squandering money on, will cost those of you needing a room $99 per night plus tax and is at an Embassy Suites airport hotel, so there's complimentary shuttle service. I'm a bit off topic, but just so you're aware - we choose hotels based primarily on room-night rates and how much can be comped - the meeting room, shuttles, etc. The Board has stayed in some real sinkholes trying to balance getting out to see the Chapters, while trying to keep costs to a minimum. Yes, there are still clubs that expect their volunteer Board members to pay their own way to Board Meetings - but in light of the responsibilities faced by our Board, the time and effort they expend to set the goals and strategy for this organization - it's just patently ridiculous to expect of them to pay for that 'privilege' out of their own pockets - and shame on anyone who's grousing about it. I will share with you, though, that I believe the Board members who attended Oktoberfest 2002 - Kathy Lyle, Barbara Adams, Reid Douglas, Scott Blazey - all paid for their own travel and rooms for the event. They were there as CCA members and did not claim reimbursement, although all of them volunteered and worked various events. Mark Jon Calabrese was there as a Roundel staffer, Satch and Phil Marx were there and worked events - all paid their own way. 2. Kathy is traveling, so she hasn't the emails, spreadsheets, hard copies and information available at her fingertips and so responded from memory. We've all done that, I suspect. Her response concerning the Oktoberfest loss might have been worded differently, and deserved a bit more information in explanation. So, here you go: To say that National negotiated the comp rooms and room guarantees without Chapter involvement is not strictly correct. The comped rooms were based on the Chapter's requirements vis a vis the number of committee chairs and were discussed at length with me during a trip I took in June, 2000 to meet with the Event Chairs and the Rep from Keystone - and frankly the comp-room practice has been a common for as long as I have understood the process for Oktoberfest (my experience beginning in 1997). The room nights were calculated on attendance of 600 - 650 members all staying at the property and we (Bruce Hazard, Fred Iacino and I) all agreed that 600 was a likely figure since in 1989 and 1995 Fred and Bruce believed RMC had experienced about 650 attendees. I was told unequivocally that everyone would want to stay at Keystone as they had in years past - and because when we met with Keystone to negotiate the contract - we'd driven to the property over Loveland Pass, I had no idea of what was available just miles down the road in Dillon and Breckenridge - it sure as heck looked to me that if you didn't stay at Keystone, you'd be sleeping in a tent or your car. It wasn't until someone who shall remain nameless (but answers to Steven Schlossman) posted his findings concerning studios at Keystone outside our room block that I realized there was puh-lenty of other rooming options and we might just be in a bit of a pickle. The initial contract with Keystone would have afforded the club 60 or so comped rooms for the Committee Chairs based on the negotiation with Keystone's agent (and that would have certainly allowed for extras). I reminded the Event Chairs yesterday that originally the contract was written so that there would only be one room night per 40 utilized, and during the dinner meeting with the rep, I'm pretty sure it was Bruce, who managed to get Keystone to agree to 1 per 32. Several emails concerning that contract were exchanged between Bruce and me, and all of the Ofest team's, or at least the Event Chairs' recommendations were included, and I might add, accepted by Keystone. The finished contract presented and signed in July of 2000 and an addendum attached in August, 2000 based on more recommendations from Bruce and JR Schneider. Comped rooms for volunteers weren't the only consideration, they never are - the club paid nothing or little for many of the reception rooms, meeting rooms, and registration rooms used based on room-night commitments, the costs for maintenance of the vendor area and registration were reduced against room night commitments. In future, it is apparent that we will end up paying significantly more for these rooms and services because we will no longer attempt to block rooms in this fashion. The room rates, at the point I entered the negotiations - were not negotiable. We'd received a $10,000 Meeting Planning coupon from Keystone several months prior to that meeting - that vexed the rep no end - and he grudgingly agreed to give us that credit against the master bill that was the only concession Keystone would make to the rates that had already been established. 753 CCA members attended Oktoberfest 2002. If all 753 had stayed at Keystone (and taking into account married couples sharing rooms) that would have been approximately 3,000 room nights - our final contractual commitment was 2198. Based on past experience we knew that not everyone would stay at the host site. The average since 1998 has been 75 - 78% of registered attendees stay at the host site. Sadly, our group filled less than half our commitment - that's only a little over 200 rooms per person/couple. For the anticipated 600 - 650, our initial commitment to Keystone was quite close, especially if there really had been no where else for people to stay. The club would have gleaned 55 comped rooms - more than enough for committee chairs and then some. We understood going into the event that Committee chairs were getting a certain number of room nights comped and the Event Chair's rooms were going to be comped for the event. National was not privy to exactly who at RMC was to receive a comped room, and who was not and frankly it's none of our business. Jim Jenkins, Oktoberfest Treasurer sent all the approved expense reports to us and we cut checks based on the Chapter's approval - if we were told it was OKed, it got paid. The club had 23 comped room nights subtracted from the total amount of the final invoice from Keystone. Surprisingly, of the 191 Rocky Mountain Chapter members who registered for Oktoberfest, only 20% booked rooms through our group at Keystone. Whether we made money or not, the club was not going to stiff a volunteer on that commitment, and we have not, whether the individual stayed at Keystone or not. In the past seven and a half years I've been responsible for negotiating the contracts for every Board Meeting, and more significantly each Congress. We have never paid a cent in attrition charges, and we have always come in under budget on the Congresses - and believe me - come to Nashville - the Board has never been profligate in budgeting for Board Meetings or Conferences. As the case has been in years past, we have relied on the expertise of the local chapter with respect to the venue and did our best to accommodate the chapter's and volunteer's needs against expectations, and against what attendees have done (in terms of rooms at the venue) in the past. So, if you're looking specifically to assign blame for the loss we will experience for Oktoberfest 2002, don't blame our Board - blame me, it's my signature on the contract. 3. As to Fred Iacino's assertion - "Please make it clear to Bill Proud that the Rocky Mountain Chapter had nothing at all to do with the Contract at Keystone the National Office negotated the room rates, comp formula etc." Fred is correct, I believe the Rocky Mountain Chapter had nothing to do with the contract, but the Oktoberfest Event Chairs most definitely did. RMC, at least the Event Chairs representing RMC, had veto power and were absolutely instrumental in the negotiation process of the contract with the venue - I don't think anything I have on file is proprietary, and I have faxes and emails clearly delineating clauses in the contract that needed adjusting, or verbiage changes. I was grateful to Bruce Hazard in particular for his willingness to use his expertise in this manner. If anyone had said "we don't think we're going to see 650 people - we don't think a lot of people are going to want to stay at Keystone because it's expensive they may end up in Dillon or Breckenridge - you need to cut those numbers back" it would have been done. National bankrolled the entire event, we had a vested interest in it being a success, and we also recognized that the Chapter had hosted three previous Oktoberfests and knew the venue far better than we did. When it became abundantly clear that there were many, less expensive properties available close to Keystone - or available at Keystone through private owners - and equally apparent that anyone with a computer and internet connection knew they could stay ten minutes down the road for $40 or $50 less a night, National began working hard to renegotiate the contract to significantly reduce the room night commitment and in this instance - Fred is absolutely correct - we did that without Chapter involvement - I alerted Fred to the fact that I felt we had to do so, and he agreed. We were successful in reducing the room commitment by 20% and a new contract was issued on January 25, 2002 - and at that time the comped room rate was raised back to 1 night for 40 rooms filled. I could go on, but suspect many of you may be cross-eyed at this point, so I'll close by saying if you have questions about this sort of thing, please don't speculate, I'm pretty sure you all know where I am, and I'm pretty sure you know I try really hard to answer emails reasonably quickly. Wynne Smith Looking forward to seing/meeting some of you in Nashville ------------------------------ End of [uucdigest] V3 #6007 *************************** ________________________________________ | Please visit these UUC-approved BMW parts vendors/service providers: | (listed alphabetically) | | Autoscope-Motorsports - http://www.autoscope-motorsports.com | Camptown Automotive - http://www.camptownauto.com | Circle Tire Co. (used & classic BMW parts) e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |==================================================== | | Koala MotorSport . BMW technical information, special tool sales/rental | http://www.koalamotorsport.com | |==================================================== | | Taylor BMW - http://www.taylorbmw.com - Doc Bimmer! | UUC Motorwerks . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com |__________________________________________
