The BMW UUC Digest Volume 2 : Issue 705 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Black Box and such and F1 Re: Black Box and such and F1 Re: Black Box and such and F1 Re: Black Box and such and F1 Which to keep (e32/e28)? Re: <e30> speaking of torque BMW V8 vs GM V8 (was <e30> speaking of torque) Re: <e30> speaking of torque Re: Oil prices/ Black Box and such Re: <E90> Interesting info Re: USGP F1 aka: Bridgestone Tire Test Re: USGP F1 aka: Bridgestone Tire Test Re: <E90> Interesting info Re: <E90> Interesting info Re: <E90> Interesting info
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:43:24 -0700 From: Tom Kosmalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Black Box and such and F1 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ryan B wrote (in the middle of a great--though non-car--piece): "But I draw the line at opposing things simply to oppose them." I couldn't agree more. In my line of work (full of acronyms), we call those CAVE People. Citizens Against Virtually Everything "Anything worth proposing is worth opposing!" seems to be the motto. Back to cars and F1 in particular: Couldn't the rules have been bent in some way at this weekends race to allow for a good show AND adequate penalty to the M-trie users? I understand that replacement tires were flown in, but deemed unacceptable by F1. Probably correct to the letter of the law, but what about back-of-the grid starting? I'm a casual fan at best of F1, but I'm pretty sure I won't find this race worth watching, and I really feel for fans who expended big $$$ and time to attend the non-event. I wouldn't be surprised if TV elects to pass on televising it altogether, except perhaps as a 30-minute general interest piece. Tom K. Hood River ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:58:40 -0400 From: Ben Keyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Black Box and such and F1 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tom wrote: > Back to cars and F1 in particular: > > Couldn't the rules have been bent in some way at this weekends race to > allow for a good show AND adequate penalty to the M-trie users? no. the FIA has rules and if they bend them for the situation which was in place at Indy (Mich screwed up, pure & simple) then Bridgestone teams would be completely w/in their rights to sue the FIA's ass and demand whatever. running the race w/a chicane as some sort of "demonstration" event wouldn't work either, as the offical points for the Bridgestone teams can just be gifted to them w/o them running the officla race distance. chancing the track and running would also have been counter to the rules. > I understand that replacement tires were flown in, but deemed > unacceptable by F1. Probably correct to the letter of the law, but > what about back-of-the grid starting? not correct. the back-up tire which Michelin had available was shown in testing by Michelin late Saturday night to also fail under the same conditions as the Indy-spec tire, so there was no tire which would have allowed full-speed racing at Indy by the M teams. > I'm a casual fan at best of F1, but I'm pretty sure I won't find this > race worth watching, and I really feel for fans who expended big $$$ > and time to attend the non-event. I wouldn't be surprised if TV > elects to pass on televising it altogether, except perhaps as a > 30-minute general interest piece. it will be on TV just like it is every year. it will be at Indy too I bet, but will likely move to Vegas in the future. this sort of thing won't happen again either I'd reckon. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:19:46 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ben Keyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Black Box and such and F1 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Adding a chicane would have been impossible. The cars are set up specifically for a high speed, low downforce, low brake use track. The Indy setup has thin brakes with small cooling ducts. Adding a chicane would probably have caused all the car's brakes to fail. Gary Derian > demand whatever. running the race w/a chicane as some sort of > "demonstration" event wouldn't work either, as the offical points > for the Bridgestone teams can just be gifted to them w/o them running > the officla race distance. chancing the track and running would also > have been counter to the rules. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 2005 16:53:06 -0000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Black Box and such and F1 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I live in Indy - was not at the race, but have had tickets every year. Other family members went this year. I believe the M teams were willing to race (with the chicane) but give all points to the B teams. Lots of news here http://www.planet-f1.com/ Haven't read it - I'm at work. ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Kosmalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Sent: 6/21/05 12:45 PM Subject: [UUC] Black Box and such and F1 > Ryan B wrote (in the middle of a great--though non-car--piece): > > "But I draw the line at opposing things simply to oppose them." > > I couldn't agree more. In my line of work (full of acronyms), we call > those CAVE People. > > Citizens Against Virtually Everything > > "Anything worth proposing is worth opposing!" seems to be the motto. > > Back to cars and F1 in particular: > > Couldn't the rules have been bent in some way at this weekends race to > allow for a good show AND adequate penalty to the M-trie users? > > I understand that replacement tires were flown in, but deemed > unacceptable by F1. Probably correct to the letter of the law, but > what about back-of-the grid starting? > > I'm a casual fan at best of F1, but I'm pretty sure I won't find this > race worth watching, and I really feel for fans who expended big $$$ > and time to attend the non-event. I wouldn't be surprised if TV > elects to pass on televising it altogether, except perhaps as a > 30-minute general interest piece. > > Tom K. > Hood River > > Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. > > UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate > Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! > 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:25:57 -0500 From: "Castro-Miller, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Which to keep (e32/e28)? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> My son is headed off to the US Naval Academy as a plebe in a week and wants to sell his car (85 535i, 235k miles). For sentimental reasons, my wife wants me to buy his and sell mine. I'd be curious about your musings and feedback on the choice. Here are the specs: 85 535i 235k miles, 5spd 10k on guibo and 3.43 LS differential Great interior condition Surface rust on drivers door hinge, left front fender, around license plate lights, one spot front of hood Uncharged R12 AC Aftermarket radio and subwoofer 1/2 dash functions don't function TRX's replaced with 15" w/cheap Kumhos Well cared for, but could use a paint job Synthetics 88 735i 205k miles, automatic 30k on rebuilt tranny and driveshaft Interior ok, needs some stitching and leather recondition - but heated seats Few surface problems, but paint on roof and trunk unsightly, complete degrading of clear coat R134a AC works Stock radio/tape Some dash lights/capacitors need attention; OBC intermittent 16" wheels and Jim Conforti chip Synthetics Needs rear muffler soon Looks like I need to put some money into either one I keep to bring it back to its happy state. I prefer the way the 7 handles. Less body roll, more stable - perhaps due to running 16" Pontenzas as opposed to 15" Kumhos. But, the 5 has a fun factor to it - that juicy differential and 5spd can produce a grin. My son has an offer for $2800 for the 5 and I'm inclined to encourage him to take it (unless my wife assigns more emotional value to it). What are your thoughts? Steve Castro-Miller (leaving for Annapolis on Saturday) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:29:16 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: <e30> speaking of torque Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Not that cheap, but cheaper than a BMW V-8 and the cheapest 400 hp on the planet. $6k will buy a low mile dropout with transmission, clutch, wiring and computer. They are also light weight, not much more than an M20. By the time one installs large cooling, brakes, transmission, rear end, cage, etc, the car will weigh more. The Camaro/Corvette version has a rear sump for the E36 crowd. Gary Derian > yeah I know. Plus they're "cheap". Only thing is GM power puts you into > a > "non-class" in BMW CR. > > The LS6 in the Caddy would be sweet in the E36 ;-) > > Marco > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gary Derian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 9:36 AM > To: Marco Romani; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [UUC] <e30> speaking of torque > > > Better to fit a GM V-8. Late GTOs have a front sump. Easy 475 hp. > Gary Derian > >> they have? Ohhhh I want to see it. I wonder if the wife would notice if >> the M62 were missing out of her car.... >> >> Marco >> >> 3. V8 conversions should not be dismissed. The guys at Edge >> Motorworks in Dublin (CA) have put a V8 from a 540i into their E36. >> There is no reason to believe that a similar conversion couldn't be >> done in the E30 chassis. >> >> Scott Miller >> GGC BMW CCA >> 1990 325i > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:19:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Andre Yew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: BMW V8 vs GM V8 (was <e30> speaking of torque) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Gary Derian wrote: > Not that cheap, but cheaper than a BMW V-8 and the cheapest 400 hp on the > planet. $6k will buy a low mile dropout with transmission, clutch, wiring > and computer. They are also light weight, not much more than an M20. By > the time one installs large cooling, brakes, transmission, rear end, cage, > etc, the car will weigh more. So is there a good reason for the existence of BMW's V8? From reading this and other things, it sounds like GM's "old"-tech V8 is the way to go, instead of a fancy DOHC, 4-valve, VANOS, etc. job. I know that the Ultima guys recommend the GM V8 small blocks for their supercar kits, too: http://www.amerspeed.com/ultima.htm --Andre ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:15:02 +0000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: <e30> speaking of torque Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.akgmotorsport.com/ These guys have one for sale in their engine swap pages. I've been druling. Peter Harkonen 1990 325i 5sp. 1961 Austin seven (for sale) > they have? Ohhhh I want to see it. I wonder if the wife would notice if > the M62 were missing out of her car.... > > Marco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Scott & Charlotte > Miller > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 10:37 PM > To: UUC Digest > Cc: John Bolhuis > Subject: Re: [UUC] <e30> speaking of torque > > > > > > 3. V8 conversions should not be dismissed. The guys at Edge > Motorworks in Dublin (CA) have put a V8 from a 540i into their E36. > There is no reason to believe that a similar conversion couldn't be > done in the E30 chassis. > > > Scott Miller > GGC BMW CCA > 1990 325i > > > Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. > > UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate > Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! > 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:34:01 -0700 From: JKerouac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ryan and Dee Dee Brenneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Oil prices/ Black Box and such Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Locally, and I would imagine in most major US newspapers today, two front page headlines are: 1. Condoleeza (Exxon oil supertanker named after her) Rice, at a speech in Egypt, with Saudi ministers present, that the US will no longer trade human rights for stability in the region. 2. Oil futures trade up near $60. a barrel. Certainly two components of oil prices are corporate greed and governmental tolerance. Fear of the US making another lame excuse to invade an oil rich country again is another. Any coincidence? George Bush senior, decorated combat pilot who's seen men die in battle, knew to use the minimum measured amount of military force necessary, in cooperation and agreement with other world governments. His son's judgement on such matters however, to quote another posting on this thread, is "sub-optimal". Barry Ryan and Dee Dee Brenneman wrote: >Gruppe > >I have been reading some of the posts on this and I have a couple of >points....... > >gas prices have risen so high so fast is >because there has been no new refinery capacity added in the US in 30 >years...................... > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:55:22 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: <E90> Interesting info Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Neil, I was looking at elemental Mg and Al and they had very different lineal coefficients. It must, as you indicate, be the alloy compositions which bring them closer together. -Kevin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:04:37 -0500 From: Neil Maller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: USGP F1 aka: Bridgestone Tire Test Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 6/21/05 11:41 AM, Ben Keyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Neil wrote: >> This debacle would >> never, not in a million years, have been allowed to happen in NASCAR. > > but it did. someone called into "Wind Tunnel" on Speed on Sunday night > and mentioned an event at Vegas in the 70's where the full slate of > normal Winston Cup teams refused to race due to safety concerns, so > Bill France grabbed the support race guys & put them on track in the > alloted time to provide a show for the fans. I'm not sure that what happened 30 years ago, when most people had never heard of NASCAR and both it and F1 were very different, is all that relevant. Nonetheless, that story proves my point. Those fans came to see a race and at least Bill France saw to it that they got one. I take it that nobody's going to claim that the FIA did that on Sunday? > regardless of what could have been done, the result in Indy was the only > possible one given the FIA's need to stick to their rules (if they hadn't, > there would have been 100% justified legal action on the part of the B teams) Again, the rules make sense only when they serve the purpose of the F1 enterprise, which is to provide entertainment for the paying public. If unforeseen events mean that they no longer do that, then it's time to think outside of the rules box. Once you start thinking that the rules have some kind of inherent value separate from their intended purpose then you're in trouble. Rules aren't immutable laws of physics - they can be changed. There are going to be lawsuits out the wazoo - to use a term of legal art! - in any case. The FIA, in its inimitably pettifogging way, simply ensured that nobody, from the fans to the teams to the drivers to the track, got anything worthwhile out of the whole fiasco. Gee, I guess one could say that's fair and balanced, in a perverted sort of way. Neil Fort Wayne, IN 96 M3 - Bastard child 03 525iT - Sterling Grey Metallic 77 MGB - Original owner, need to sell 05 Mini - Cooper S with LSD! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:24:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Carlos Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Neil Maller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: USGP F1 aka: Bridgestone Tire Test Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Neil Maller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Again, the rules make sense only when they serve the purpose of the >F1 enterprise, which is to provide entertainment for the paying >public. If unforeseen events mean that they no longer do that, then >it's time to think outside of the rules box. I think you and Ben are in agreement here as Ben said something similar which I totally agreed with. The FIA can't see outside of it's own rules box and how that stupid single set of tires rule has finally ruined a race for everyone. Well... except the Bridgestone runners and the points they earned. Monteiro seemed quite thrilled with his podium finish. Carlos. PS I watched qualifying and only about two minutes of the race. Was anticipating that Renault would get into the lead from their starting positions as the straight into turn 1 is long enough for them to overtake 3-4 cars at least. Very disappointed. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:40:59 +0100 From: nick brearley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: <E90> Interesting info Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At 09:19 21/06/05 -0500, Neil Maller wrote: >on 6/21/05 3:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I wonder why on this new motor the differences in thermal coefficient of > > expansion between the Aluminum and Magnesium don't create problems at the > > interface of the two metals. > >For the same reason that aluminum blocks with iron liners work OK? > >In fact Mg (25.2 ppm/deg C at 20C) and Al (23.8) aren't much different in >coefficient of thermal expansion, and different alloys of each might be even >closer (or further apart...). Fe however is only about 10.5 (again, subject >to variation according to type). Any electrochemists (does such a discipline exist?) got any thoughts on the fact that magnesium is used for sacrificial anodes in heating systems? Surely BMW wouldn't overlook a simple fact like that... Better make sure there aren't any copper washers in contact with the coolant anywhere. Nick Brearley ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:59:20 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]>, "nick brearley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: <E90> Interesting info Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The magnesium is only used in the outer crankcase, bellhousing and accessory mounts. The inner core of aluminum contains the coolant, cylinders and main bearing saddles. Gary Derian > Any electrochemists (does such a discipline exist?) got any thoughts on > the fact that magnesium is used for sacrificial anodes in heating systems? > Surely BMW wouldn't overlook a simple fact like that... > > Better make sure there aren't any copper washers in contact with the > coolant anywhere. > > Nick Brearley ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 20:29:46 +0100 From: nick brearley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: <E90> Interesting info Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At 14:59 21/06/05 -0400, Gary Derian wrote: >The magnesium is only used in the outer crankcase, bellhousing and >accessory mounts. The inner core of aluminum contains the coolant, >cylinders and main bearing saddles. >Gary Derian Thanks for the clarification Gary. In any case I'm sure any problems would be well resolved by the time I can afford any car fitted with on of these engines... Nick ------------------------------ End of [bmwuucdigest] digest(15 messages) **********
