Autocar First Drive - E90

[SCA]

http://www.autocar.co.uk/FirstDrive_Summary.asp?RT=213132

[rumatt]

He really didn't say all that much, did he.

[SCA]

He really didn't say all that much, did he.

Better off to buy the actual issue. I did today but, I have not read it yet...

[lemming]

what he did write was funny.

"...What we have seen in the interim is BMW uncharacteristically dropping the ball: the 7-series and X3 are deeply flawed, the Z4 attracted mixed reviews, and even the 1-series has had to duck the odd rancid tomato. But BMW can wear such criticism: individually none is crucial to the company’s health. By contrast, 65 per cent of all BMWs sold in the UK are 3-series – making a mess of its replacement cannot be countenanced."

"Visually, it’s a little disappointing. Parked next to its predecessor it looks upright, with poorer proportions and fussier detailing. Inside, the appearance is of a shrunken 5-series with a camel-like double-hump dashboard and an awkward blend of smooth and grained plastics with token slivers of unconvincing wood. BMW proudly crows about the increased leg and shoulder room in the rear, but forgets to mention the reduced headroom. It’s a reasonable cabin but, in this regard if no other, the 3-series is not going to have anyone at Audi quaking under the bedclothes."

"ind you, BMW did its best to ensure we never found out how good the 330i chassis is. The test cars came with Active Steering, that hateful system which varies the steering ratio according to road speed, meaning you’re never quite sure how the car will react to any given input. I had to seek out an uninfected 320d to discover that normal 3-series steering is positive, precise, communicative and entirely predictable."

:lol:

and here i was thinking only carmudgeons disliked the x3 and the z4 and active steering.

[bren]

BMW proudly crows about the increased leg and shoulder room in the rear, but forgets to mention the reduced headroom.
This isn't good considering how tight the e46 is with a helmet.

[undefined]

BMW proudly crows about the increased leg and shoulder room in the rear, but forgets to mention the reduced headroom.
This isn't good considering how tight the e46 is with a helmet.

unless you're riding with a helmet in the back seat, i don't think it's an issue

:eek:

[clyde]

But what is an issue is that sunroofs are standard. I'm sure that some will be able to get their dealers to ram a sunroof delete through BMWNA, but it probably wouldn't be Stock legal...

[JST]

But what is an issue is that sunroofs are standard. I'm sure that some will be able to get their dealers to ram a sunroof delete through BMWNA, but it probably wouldn't be Stock legal...

Why wouldn't that be stock legal?

[clyde]

But what is an issue is that sunroofs are standard. I'm sure that some will be able to get their dealers to ram a sunroof delete through BMWNA, but it probably wouldn't be Stock legal...

Why wouldn't that be stock legal?

13. STOCK CATEGORY
Cars running in Stock Category must have been series produced with
normal road touring equipment capable of being licensed for normal
road use in the United States, and normally sold and delivered
through the manufacturer’s retail sales outlets in the United States.

[snip]

Except for modifications authorized below, Stock Category cars must
be run as specified by the factory with only standard equipment as
defined by these Rules. This requirement refers not just to individual
parts, but to combinations thereof which would have been ordered
together on a specific car.


Emphasis mine

That reads to me that you can't delete "Standard" equipment with "Standard" being defined as what comes with the car through its normal specification. If the sunroof is standard, without a regular "sunroof delete" option, I don't think that you can use it if it doesn't have it. If it were something that would fall under the C&C exlcusion with no potential performance equivalent (say, an armrest or rear sunshade), you could probably do it, but removing 20-50 lbs from the top of the car is something that I would exect to see upheld if protested.

The poster child of these limitations is/was the 914. Apparently, there were 80 gazillion different and meaningful ways to order the car but only a handful were through traditional options. As a result 914s can't run Stock without incurring a shitstorm of protests (if the driver doesn't finish at the bottom), and from what I've heard, the protests are generally upheld.

[JST]

But what is an issue is that sunroofs are standard. I'm sure that some will be able to get their dealers to ram a sunroof delete through BMWNA, but it probably wouldn't be Stock legal...

Why wouldn't that be stock legal?

13. STOCK CATEGORY
Cars running in Stock Category must have been series produced with
normal road touring equipment capable of being licensed for normal
road use in the United States, and normally sold and delivered
through the manufacturer’s retail sales outlets in the United States.

[snip]

Except for modifications authorized below, Stock Category cars must
be run as specified by the factory with only standard equipment as
defined by these Rules. This requirement refers not just to individual
parts, but to combinations thereof which would have been ordered
together on a specific car.


Emphasis mine

That reads to me that you can't delete "Standard" equipment with "Standard" being defined as what comes with the car through its normal specification. If the sunroof is standard, without a regular "sunroof delete" option, I don't think that you can use it if it doesn't have it. If it were something that would fall under the C&C exlcusion with no potential performance equivalent (say, an armrest or rear sunshade), you could probably do it, but removing 20-50 lbs from the top of the car is something that I would exect to see upheld if protested.

The poster child of these limitations is/was the 914. Apparently, there were 80 gazillion different and meaningful ways to order the car but only a handful were through traditional options. As a result 914s can't run Stock without incurring a shitstorm of protests (if the driver doesn't finish at the bottom), and from what I've heard, the protests are generally upheld.

You may be right about the protests being upheld, but based on the facts given and the rules as written, that doesn't strike me as the right result. To my mind, if you order it through a BMW NA dealer and the factory builds it, that's "standard."

Note the definition in 12.4:



12.4 STANDARD PART
An item of standard or optional equipment that could have been
ordered with the car, installed on the factory production line, and
delivered through a dealer in the United States. Dealer-installed
options or deletions (except as required by factory directives), no
matter how common or what their origin, are not included in this
definition. This definition does not allow the updating or backdating
of parts.



A sunroof-less roof is thus by definition a "standard part" if you can order it through a dealer, have it installed in the factory production line, and have it delivered through a dealer in the US. The sunroof-less roof is not dealer installed.

Clearly, the rules provide that if you cannot break up option packages--IOW, you can't run SP wheels on a car without the SP, unless you add all of the other SP parts, as well. But we aren't talking about that--we are talking about a stand-alone option (no sunroof) that can theoretically be ordered with any car configuration. The rules, as far as I read them, do not say that a "standard" part has to appear in official order guide or published brochure, just that it "could have been
ordered with the car, installed on the factory production line, and
delivered through a dealer in the United States." Absent order guides, proof, of course, may be an issue in a protest, but I would think that an order sheet (or a Monroney sticker) showing a sunroof delete would be sufficient.

[clyde]

AFAIK, the Monroney sticker is sufficent to establish that a car came from a factory with specific equipment, but it doesn't establish that a car was normally configurable in that manner. To use your example of SP/non-SP wheels, you could order your non-SP car with SP wheels and the factory could install them and have the car delivered that way. The sunroof is in the same boat. The difference is that BMWNA won't approve an order with SP wheels and whether they will approve a no-sunroof order is yet TBD. As specified by the factory, all US bound cars will have sunroofs. Lacking a listed sunroof delete option, I don't see a way around that. If a dealer plugs in "delete sunroof" on an order, BMWNA will reject it. (Sarafil, if you're reading, additional insight/correction on this process would be appreciated ;))

Solo II rules lawyering is interesting since the final arbitrar is the SEB's intent, not what's actually written in the book. :D

[TD]

BTW, I would suspect that even most of us who consider ourselves enthuisasts (or "carmudgeons") do not think much, if at all, about a car's autox classifications prior to ordering/buying.

[JST]

AFAIK, the Monroney sticker is sufficent to establish that a car came from a factory with specific equipment, but it doesn't establish that a car was normally configurable in that manner. To use your example of SP/non-SP wheels, you could order your non-SP car with SP wheels and the factory could install them and have the car delivered that way. The sunroof is in the same boat. The difference is that BMWNA won't approve an order with SP wheels and whether they will approve a no-sunroof order is yet TBD. As specified by the factory, all US bound cars will have sunroofs. Lacking a listed sunroof delete option, I don't see a way around that. If a dealer plugs in "delete sunroof" on an order, BMWNA will reject it. (Sarafil, if you're reading, additional insight/correction on this process would be appreciated ;))

Solo II rules lawyering is interesting since the final arbitrar is the SEB's intent, not what's actually written in the book. :D

There are two different issues, right? One is whether the car can be ordered without a sunroof. The other is whether the car would be "stock" if you could order it without a sunroof.

As to the first question, I have no idea. As to the second, the rules pretty clearly say that IF the car CAN be ordered without a part through a dealer, that's a standard part and you are good to go. Note that the definition of "standard" doesn't say anything about "listed by the factory" or "spec sheets" or "order systems." The only criteria for "standard" are: a) could the car be ordered (somehow) with the part; b) could the car be built at the factory with that part; and c); could the car be delivered through a US dealer. In other words, if the answer to the first question is yes, the answer to the second question should also be yes, q.e.d.

I agree that all of this is academic, because it turns not on what the rules say but rather on what the decisionmaker thinks. That's the kind of arbitrary thing that gives lawyers hives.

[clyde]

There are two different issues, right? One is whether the car can be ordered without a sunroof. The other is whether the car would be "stock" if you could order it without a sunroof.

As to the first question, I have no idea. As to the second, the rules pretty clearly say that IF the car CAN be ordered without a part through a dealer, that's a standard part and you are good to go. Note that the definition of "standard" doesn't say anything about "listed by the factory" or "spec sheets" or "order systems." The only criteria for "standard" are: a) could the car be ordered (somehow) with the part; b) could the car be built at the factory with that part; and c); could the car be delivered through a US dealer. In other words, if the answer to the first question is yes, the answer to the second question should also be yes, q.e.d.

If that were so, the 914 wouldn't have had the problems it had. If everyone knew that the car could be ordered in every conceivable manner, no one would have bothered to protest any of them...but that's not what happened.

I agree that all of this is academic, because it turns not on what the rules say but rather on what the decisionmaker thinks. That's the kind of arbitrary thing that gives lawyers hives.

I'm sure that it wouldn't take much more than a PITA lawsuit to make that change. :twisted:

Honestly, if BMWNA lets any E90 order go through with a sunroof delete, and that car ends up in Topeka, it will be protested. My guess is that the protest will eventually be upheld, but I could be wrong. The E90 could well be a real contender in D Stock so the issue will have legs.

[clyde]

BTW, I would suspect that even most of us who consider ourselves enthuisasts (or "carmudgeons") do not think much, if at all, about a car's autox classifications prior to ordering/buying.

That's because most of those that consider themselves "enthusiasts" don't competitively autocross...and do so in late model Stock class cars. The ratio of carmudgeons that do is probably a good bit higher.

[rumatt]

BTW, I would suspect that even most of us who consider ourselves enthuisasts (or "carmudgeons") do not think much, if at all, about a car's autox classifications prior to ordering/buying.

What a poseur.


:mad:

[clyde]

BTW, I would suspect that even most of us who consider ourselves enthuisasts (or "carmudgeons") do not think much, if at all, about a car's autox classifications prior to ordering/buying.

What a poseur.


:mad:

http://hoary.crippl3.net:26/nail.jpg

:angel:

[rumatt]

Sorry, but I haven't had as much to drink tonight.

Huh? :?

[clyde]

nail

head

:dunno:

[rumatt]

nail

head

:dunno:

Ah. I see.


:scratch: :crazy: