Pro3 vs. Spec E30

GGilmor

GGilmor

Member
I haven't dissected the rules for the differences between these two builds yet but can somebody comment on the main differences?

I believe there will be a sanctioning body promoting Spec E30 racing in the Northwest in the not-to-distant future so I want to build a car that could possibly meet both specifications.
Thanks
 
SpecE30 is with NASA, so unless NASA is moving into the NW, I'd be surprised to see an opportunity to race a SpecE30 in this area any time soon.

That being said, SpecE30 is more restrictive, and slighly lower cost to build a car. A SpecE30 car would be mostly legal to drive in PRO-3, just a few seconds slower per lap.

The rules for each class are only 7-8 pages long and in pretty plain english, I'd suggest reviewing them to decide. The PRO-3 group don't race SpecE30 so we can't really comment on the minutia of their build sheet as a comparison to ours.

You can learn more about PRO-3 at www.PRO3-Racing.com

cheers,
 
You can build to Spec E30 rules and race Pro3 without protest...from the back of the Pro3 grid.

Spec E30 has been called a 'detuned' Pro3; or the reverse, Pro3 is "Spec E30 on steroids" (cue the Congressional hearing on steroid use here...) This coming from some of our guest drivers at PIR June 7th, and not just our own comparison of the rules.

The major differences?
Suspension
Chipping the ecu
exhaust
Suspension
Engine mods (minor head work)
did I mention suspension?

Spec E30 is more along the lines of a true 'spec' class in that major components are spec'd out: exhaust, tires, suspension. And now, there's talk of establishing "acceptable" engine horsepower baselines complete with dyno's brought to the track. The only thing spec'd in Pro3 is the tire.

A spec e30 car would not be competitive in Pro3...possibly as much as 30 horsepower in the hole and too soft suspension.

It would be possible to build a car that could comply with both classes, but truthfully, that would take some work. You would have to have two seperate engines and a complete suspension setup unique to both, then of course the time to swap. Basically: I wouldn't recommend it.

Right now, we know of 40 Pro3 cars either race-ready, close to ready, or under production with the intent of racing. There may be more...the largest grid to date is PIR with 31 Pro3 cars attending; 29 taking the green flag. Prior to that were two races in 2008 with 28 and 29 Pro3 cars attending (PIR and PR respectively).

So...it depends what you want out of club racing. Spec E30 offers one thing that Pro3 cannot: national event racing. However, we can race a full ICSCC schedule including two enduros and are very competitive within the class for good, clean, close racing. Check any of the Pro3 videos on Youtube to see for yourself!

But then, I am biased :cool:
 
Back when I was living in SoCal and attending NASA events, I seriously considered building or buying a Spec E30 car. As I recall, among the chief differences between Spec E30 and Pro3 are:

Spec E30 runs smaller wheels & tires (15x7 & 205/50/15, respectively)
Spec E30 has a Spec suspension with spec Bilstein dampers and H&R springs
Spec E30 maintains stock engine & drivetrain

Pro3 cars have allow a bit more prep and I expect them to be faster and handle better. FWIW, I always felt that Spec E30 should have gone with wider tires (e.g., 225) but what the heck do I know.

The series is very popular on the east coast and in NorCal. Strangely, it never took off in SoCal. Probably because Spec Miata, Camaro Mustang Challenge, and Honda Challenge seem to draw the bulk of the racers down there.

Here's the Spec E30 website:
www.spece30.com

Here's the Spec E30 rules:
http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/SpecE30.pdf
 
I should add that I'm really impressed with the performance of the Pro3 cars up here. I'd like to rent one one of these days just to compare with my Spec Miata.
 
mikecolangelo said:
I should add that I'm really impressed with the performance of the Pro3 cars up here. I'd like to rent one one of these days just to compare with my Spec Miata.
Click to expand...

We can get you hooked up with a good crack dealer...uh...I mean "Pro3 rental" program. You just say the word!:D
 
...And maybe NASA is coming up here. They've got a date on the ORP calendar in July.

Especially with a delay in getting ORP approved by ICSCC, leaves the ORP door wide open for them.
 
Well, I personally think NASA runs a great program, especially enduros. Conference would be well served to emulate many of the aspects of a NASA enduro. Does this mean I'm not loyal to Conference, of course not. I'm just not blind to the world outside of Conference racing.

As a "customer" it's only natural for me to be attracted to the best "product". Conference needs to be mindful of this as we sometimes let institutional inertia or tradition be a needless road block to evolving. If we're concerned about competition from NASA, we simply need to provide a better product.

Case in point is race results. If the C/R or P/P stipulate a specific format, and this format requirement prevents us from taking advantage of new technologies that weren't available at the time the requirement was written, maybe we as a democratic group need to try to understand why the specific format was required in the first place. Then see if the core justification of that requirement can still be served while using a different utility that can deliver the results in a much more timely fashion. If the ASA race results last weekend can be published within hours, why can't ours?

We need to look for solutions, not cite the reasons we can't do things.
 
Last edited:
You are right Randy, NASA seems to be a well organized, and somewhat snobbish organization, (IMHO), that has grown very quickly. I just don't want to see them get a toe hold in the NW and jeopardize Conference, and that possibility does concern me.
They seem to be the equal of SCCA in many respects, which could be either good, or bad, depending on who you speak to, but the last thing we need is for them to competing with us for event dates at 'our' tracks.
 
westipton said:
You are right Randy, NASA seems to be a well organized, and somewhat snobbish organization, (IMHO), that has grown very quickly. I just don't want to see them get a toe hold in the NW and jeopardize Conference, and that possibility does concern me.
They seem to be the equal of SCCA in many respects, which could be either good, or bad, depending on who you speak to, but the last thing we need is for them to competing with us for event dates at 'our' tracks.
Click to expand...

Instead of being paranoid about another group whomever it is we just need to keep doing what has kept Conference as the leading NW racing organization for so long in the NW.
I think Randy nailed it right on the head:
we simply need to provide a better product.
Click to expand...
We need to look for solutions, not cite the reasons we can't do things.
Click to expand...

Build and keep building the best racing organization. Evolve in a timely manner to stay current and provide the best product. Then there would be no room for anyone else.

The "head in the sand" and "that's how we have always done it" mentality that the "other NW racing group" has is why they are and have been stuck where they are at. A few seemed open to new ideas and change but the rest just pointed to the large national organization and basically played the "blame storming session" game. Many of the worker volunteers are the same in both groups but the leadership is vastly different.

Steve Clinton and I both ran with them. Yes it was Time Trials, but we ran on the same days as the race groups. As Novices every time we show up at an ICSCC event we marvel at how "different" things are with ICSCC. Entry count speaks for itself. We cannot rest on our position or fear a challenge. We need to use it to motivate ourselves to keep improving and looking forward. Will there be an error or miss step? Sure, but if we stay flexible and forward looking we can quickly recover and move forward.

They will only be "our tracks" if we continue to provide the best product at those tracks for the current conditions. No race group owns or is grandfathered in at these tracks. Just the best product with the largest entries will stay at them.

Do not fear change, embrace it and use it to our benefit.
It is just a lane change, get over it. If we find we do not like this new lane we can change to another lane.

The only true constant in this world is change.
 
I don't know that they're snobbish. I think maybe it's simply a case that NASA uses a model unlike SCCA or Conference, where the decision making authority rests mostly with one guy, Jerry Kunzman. Naturally he thinks his decisions are validated based on the growth of NASA in general, and the vitality of NASA's premier event, the 25 hrs. enduro.

It's not a model I personally prefer, I prefer Conference's model where the drivers make the rules, but I think it's a better model than SCCA. This seems to be reflected in the apparent rise of NASA and decline of SCCA, in my opinion.

My take on the matter is NASA probably appears to be a dictatorship, but many times someone has to make a decision for things to work smoothly. One advantage this organizational structure has is the ability to adapt much more quickly than Conference's, because of the committee style decision making process that Conference uses, and this is something we (Conference membership) need to be aware of and responsive to so we don't suffer the same decline.

Each organizational structure has it's pluses and minuses. Either one is infinitely more attractive to me than the SCCA model of many people making decisions on my behalf, subject to all kinds of corruption and political/money influences that are so transparent and taint the whole affair.

I'd have to disagree with you on the competition aspect. It will force both bodies to provide a better product, and in the end that will serve us all. Conference will only be jeopardized if we fail to provide a product that's at least the equal, if not the superior to NASA. In the case we don't, we're only going to have ourselves to blame.
 
Back on topic

Many of the mods that became PRO3 spec were addressing driver fun and overall cost of operation. Wider tires and stiffer more adjustable suspension make for longer tire life as well as more driver fun. A Spec E30 would have trouble getting ahead of a good Spec Miata on the tighter tracks. A PRO3 car has a tighter setup to get closer to Miata cornering and longer legs to get out of the way on the straight stretches.
If you build a Spec E30 and run in PRO3 you will have a good race with the back runners. You can also run EP with the 325e boys - they are basically set up with SpecE30 suspension. In group 2 with the small bore nimble cars there would be plenty of close driving.
Bottom line above Spec E30 to build a competitive PRO3 you might be looking at
$1000+ for suspension over new SPEC E30 setup
$1000+ for engine tuning
$1000+ for exhaust
You can do each of the above as you grow your driving ability and your budget allows.
 
Not sure why you replace the word concern with the word paranoia Greg. To be concerned about possible encroachment from a rival organization is a valid emotion in my opinion. I'm not addressing the rights, wrongs or workings of either group, or which is better, or which one might offer a superior product. I'm simply responding to Holly's comment about the NASA race date at ORP and the foot in the NW door that it presents.
That real, or perceived threat would take years to materialize, and hopefully they would never venture any further north than ORP, but we need to be diligent in our efforts to keep what we have.
My minmal contact with NASA was only in regard to our first enduro, and their displeasure at us posting an invite on their site, which they were not happy about. Very rude behavior and not "together for racing" by any means. They also have been less than kind and consistent with their rulings when it comes to Conference cars vs. NASA cars. DND has had issues with them more than once, so personally I don't care for their attitude at all. But again that's ust my personal observation.
 
A really interesting paper could be written contrasting and comparing the "business models" of ICSCC, NASA, and SCCA. I don't think it is paranoid to keep an eye on all of the above to make sure Conference doesn't lose it's appeal to it's members.

The SCCA used to be the big dog and was viewed as a very real path to higher levels of motorsport. There are still some very good people racing with them and we have shared many critical volunteers without whom races simply couldn't be held at the current cost level. The biggest problem that they have run into in recent years is that they want to appear to be a club that is run for the benefit of it's members but have evolved over the years into a secret business of sorts. Members who drive race cars in wheel to wheel racing (our focus) are in the gross minority in the SCCA although the club's revenues are obtained primarily from them. This has been the greatest source of frustration for the driver members of SCCA because they no longer have the ability to have significant control over the rules making process that they must race under. Highly paid national staff, volunteers, family members, autocrossers and "for profit" side businesses all take a healthy bite out of Club Racing revenue without providing a clear direct benefit for the Club Racers who are funding it.

NASA is openly and unabashedly a business. They may have a "benevolent dictator" making the calls, but they are still subject to economic forces. If someone like Wes has a bad experience at one of their races, he votes for many years to come with his dollars. I've had this conversation with Wes about the muddy nightmare they went to at the first NASA 25 hour and he is following a very capitalistic response - "Give me good value for my money, or I won't come back." I am enthusastically and unapologetically a Capitalist so this approach seems positive and unambiguous. I would say that later trips to the 25 by myself and friends have revealed a well run, customer service focused race that went off in a very precise fashion. Not perfect, mind you, but very good. Perhaps you should give it another try some day Wes, it appears they learned some hard lessons from your experience. Unlike SCCA, they don't try to hide that there is money involved. They have to win your business just like the restaurant down the street. If they don't give you value for your dollar, they don't make any money and their investment in time and money is lost. It's not my favorite way to run a racing organization, but it's a pretty good one and it's easy to understand. I will suggest that it must be better than the SCCA's current model, because most of NASA's gains have come directly at the expense of SCCA participation.

ICSCC is somewhat unique because although we still only operate if we remain solvent, the will of the Licensed Race Drivers in Conference is the final say in all matters. If the IRDC drivers vote to have free races until we run out of money then cease to exist, then that is exactly what will happen. I have enough faith in my fellow members to trust that the majority will act in a well thought out and responsible fashion so I don't think that is going to happen any time soon. They also elect us as a board and give us a fair amount of power to try to expedite important decision making. We don't take that lightly and some time is often consumed while we consult some or all of the membership before making decisions on their behalf. Can we make decisions as quickly as the "friendly despot" who's job it is to run a racing organization? No. Do we get paid to do this? No. Do we all have jobs, responsibilities, and race cars of our own competing for our time? Yes. Can we work on making decisions more quickly than we sometimes do? Sure!

I talk to other racers all the time, I read this and about a dozen other race related forums, and I try to disseminate as much as possible to the membership through websites, meetings, and races. I think I have a pretty good idea of what our members want most of the time, and if I don't - the membership has the power to bounce me and replace me with someone who better addresses their needs. That's the beauty of a democratic system.

We on the IRDC board are a lot louder and more active than it must appear to the membership at large. There is a lot of really diverse racing experience among the drivers that are in the leadership and those who regularly show up at club meetings. Most have run with other organizations in addition to ICSCC. We talk all the time in both board meetings and membership meetings about things we have seen and learned both from ICSCC experiences and other organizations so we can grow what is done right and eliminate what is done wrong. WE ARE A RACE DRIVER DRIVEN ORGANIZATION. It's active constructive criticism and open discussion like this that make the whole thing work, so keep it up but don't forget to show up at your meetings and get your hand dirty. Lets continue to make Conference the best place to race in the region for years to come.

(P.S. - Let's not make it sound like we don't want to race at ORP! It has nothing to do with "leaving the door open" if I understand it correctly. Races require insurance to manage risk. Insurance requires track certification. No certification = no insurance = no race. Is there something here I am missing? As far as I know we are moving towards having a race there later this year. Be nice to know that for sure soon.)
 
I've only raced with ICSCC for a few years, but I have to say that I'm so impressed with how the sanctioning body and clubs put on a 12-13 race season, with a couple of enduros thrown in, plus a few driving schools, etc. all with volunteer effort. And from my vantage point, all done with smiles and camaraderie.

To me, that's why NASA never got a foot hold in the NW, and why SCCA seems pretty weak in this region. I'll also add that BMW CCA Club Racing shows a big black hole in the NW as well. They race all over the country, but know that BMW Club drivers are served well by ICSCC so they don't try to run races in this region.

It's a tendency for the organizers to dwell on what went wrong, to improve it. Which is good. But remind yourselves from time to time that you get it right 9 out of 10 times.

Tip of the hat from this 4 times-a-year racer!
 
I will definitley jump at the chance to run the 25 Rick, and it's good to hear from you that they have improved over the last few years.
I think we all look forward to running ORP, and I haven't spoken to a single driver or worker yet who doesn't want to be there for that first event. Numerous tracks have come and gone over the last few decades, but this one looks like the real deal, and hopefully we'll be racing there for a very long time.
Your assessment of all 3 organizations is 'on the spot' as usual, and of the three Conference is by far the most successful. NASA is expanding quiickly and is becoming a force to be dealt with, but they don't yet have the credentials of an entity like ours. You can't beat 50+ years of success, nor can you take that lightly either.
They could potentially out dollar us when it comes to track rental fees, but being way up here would put them out on a shaky limb that they would probably not want to climb, at least for the time being. Their west coast base is obviously California, and even ORP is a bit of a hike let alone PR or SRP. So for now I assume we are safe from any serious forays into 'our' territory, but continued viligence is definitely part of our future.
 
Last edited:
from one of the E power boys Greg spoke of in Group 5 i do have the spec30 springs shock and sways to soft i get to play with lots of body roll. my personal best at PIR is about 3 seconds off the front of PRO3 but im about 50lbs lighter then pro3 and about 150 lighter then specE30. power wise im down said ~30hp up a little bit in TQ but dont have the advantage of running more final drive gear. the car would still be alot of fun just not up front in PRO3 if specE30 was another run group in the weekend that the car was running
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top