July Fastrack

[John Stimson]

Are the newer JCW's factory-built? I know the first-gen cars were a dealer-installed kit.

Yes. But so are the BMW M series, the Audi S series, the AMG Mercedes, etc. They're all tuner cars, and IMO they shouldn't be allowed to compete against the "regular" cars whose performance they were designed and built to exceed in every facet.

The later JCW cars don't have any sort of limited slip differential, so they weren't built to exceed the standard Cooper S in every facet.

What the SAC/SEB probably need most is detailed facts and history about the JCW package and the Cooper S models.

For instance, in 2005, the John Cooper Works kit was a dealer accessory, but became a factory installed option package in 2006.

In 2006, the JCW package included a LSD in addition to the power bump. It came with a brake package that was also optional on the standard cars. http://www.fast-autos.net/vehicles/Mini ... per_S_JCW/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The 2006 probably shouldn't be moved, since it's clearly the best of the first-generation cars.

Oh, and there was a JCW GP edition, which is a lightweight package with no back seat. I don't think that's included in the proposed move, and it definitely should not be.

Not sure what was available JCW-wise in 2007-2008. It seems like the JCW stuff went back to being a set of accessories in those years, based on this: http://www.supercars.net/cars/3754.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Who knows whether there was a factory option package in 2007 or 2008 and what it included and excluded?

In 2009-11, MINI released John Cooper Works models, which had more power than the Cooper S, but did not come with LSD, just an electronic braking "diff". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_(marque" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)#Mini_John_Cooper_Works_.282009-.29 No way is more power with less traction going to perform better in autocross.

Finally, there is a John Cooper engine tuning option listed in the options catalog on the MINI web site, that gives almost the same power boost as the JCW models. Does anyone know if that option is factory or dealer installed?

[Steve Ekstrand]

Are there any negatives to the JCW over the Cooper S? Like getting stuck with a non-optimal wheel diameter? My dad has been singing the JCW praises since they came out.

[Kurt Rahn]

Finally, there is a John Cooper engine tuning option listed in the options catalog on the MINI web site, that gives almost the same power boost as the JCW models. Does anyone know if that option is factory or dealer installed?

Any JCW options that are added to a Cooper or Cooper S are dealer installed.

BTW, here's my letter, in case anyone's interested. I didn't get into history, as I found it hard to find a source I trust, and I don't know it off the top of my head.

Dear SEB,

I am writing in response to the proposal in July’s FasTrack that would move the Mini Cooper JCW and Clubman JCW from CS to DS. Please consider the following before making a final determination:

• The Cooper JCW is a special tuner version of the Cooper. To me this is the equivalent of the BMW M cars, the Audi S cars and the Subaru STI. Historically, these cars have run in a higher class than the “normal” versions on which they are based.
• JCW’s engine modifications are not just bolt-on external parts. To achieve significantly higher power than the Cooper S, Mini added a revised head and exhaust valves, a bigger turbo, more efficient intake, larger exhaust housing, enlarged cat and downpipe, sport cat-back exhaust, stouter clutch revised transmission. If a normal competitor were to make the same modifications to his or her Mini, it would class the car in Street Modified.
• The JCW has 20% more horsepower and 17% more torque in a car with the same suspension and weight. That is a significant, unfair advantage. Here is how my 2010 Mini Cooper S compares to the Cooper JCW:
Weight* HP HP/Per lb Torque Torque/Per lb
Cooper S 2668 172 15.5 177 15.1
Cooper JCW 2668 208 12.8 207** 12.9
* Curb weight as listed by Mini
**Normal torque s 192 lb/ft, but with the overboost function activated it is 207 lb/ft.

• The Cooper s has single piston, 11.6” front/10.2” rear OEM brakes. The JCW has four-piston 12.4” front /11.0” rear Brembo brakes. Again, significant advantage on an otherwise identical chassis.
• The competitive dominance that the Cooper S enjoyed in GS has already been addressed with the move to DS. The car is no longer dominant, and now there is competition in DS again. By putting the tuner JCW version in DS, that competition might go away again, as the JCW dominates.
• If there is genuine interest in keeping people in the stock classes, as mentioned in the recent Solo Matters, the it would probably be a good idea not to turn people off by continually moving cars from class to class without regard to what that might do to the class. People are already looking at the street tire vs R comp issue, but I would wager this issue is currently having a bigger negative impact on the stock classes, based on discussions I’ve had with people in the last year or so.

I hope after careful consideration the SEB will reject the proposal to move the Cooper JCW and Clubman JCW into DS with its far less powerful sibling the Cooper S. I know that I personally will stop driving in stock if this proposal goes through. I can’t afford to buy a new car every year because the class I drive in has been arbitrarily uprooted and my car is no longer competitive. I’d rather drive in one of the ST classes, where the eligible car list is stable.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Doug Kott]

Finally, there is a John Cooper engine tuning option listed in the options catalog on the MINI web site, that gives almost the same power boost as the JCW models. Does anyone know if that option is factory or dealer installed?

Any JCW options that are added to a Cooper or Cooper S are dealer installed.

BTW, here's my letter, in case anyone's interested. I didn't get into history, as I found it hard to find a source I trust, and I don't know it off the top of my head.

Dear SEB,

I am writing in response to the proposal in July’s FasTrack that would move the Mini Cooper JCW and Clubman JCW from CS to DS. Please consider the following before making a final determination:

• The Cooper JCW is a special tuner version of the Cooper. To me this is the equivalent of the BMW M cars, the Audi S cars and the Subaru STI. Historically, these cars have run in a higher class than the “normal” versions on which they are based.
• JCW’s engine modifications are not just bolt-on external parts. To achieve significantly higher power than the Cooper S, Mini added a revised head and exhaust valves, a bigger turbo, more efficient intake, larger exhaust housing, enlarged cat and downpipe, sport cat-back exhaust, stouter clutch revised transmission. If a normal competitor were to make the same modifications to his or her Mini, it would class the car in Street Modified.
• The JCW has 20% more horsepower and 17% more torque in a car with the same suspension and weight. That is a significant, unfair advantage. Here is how my 2010 Mini Cooper S compares to the Cooper JCW:
Weight* HP HP/Per lb Torque Torque/Per lb
Cooper S 2668 172 15.5 177 15.1
Cooper JCW 2668 208 12.8 207** 12.9
* Curb weight as listed by Mini
**Normal torque s 192 lb/ft, but with the overboost function activated it is 207 lb/ft.

• The Cooper s has single piston, 11.6” front/10.2” rear OEM brakes. The JCW has four-piston 12.4” front /11.0” rear Brembo brakes. Again, significant advantage on an otherwise identical chassis.
• The competitive dominance that the Cooper S enjoyed in GS has already been addressed with the move to DS. The car is no longer dominant, and now there is competition in DS again. By putting the tuner JCW version in DS, that competition might go away again, as the JCW dominates.
• If there is genuine interest in keeping people in the stock classes, as mentioned in the recent Solo Matters, the it would probably be a good idea not to turn people off by continually moving cars from class to class without regard to what that might do to the class. People are already looking at the street tire vs R comp issue, but I would wager this issue is currently having a bigger negative impact on the stock classes, based on discussions I’ve had with people in the last year or so.

I hope after careful consideration the SEB will reject the proposal to move the Cooper JCW and Clubman JCW into DS with its far less powerful sibling the Cooper S. I know that I personally will stop driving in stock if this proposal goes through. I can’t afford to buy a new car every year because the class I drive in has been arbitrarily uprooted and my car is no longer competitive. I’d rather drive in one of the ST classes, where the eligible car list is stable.

Thank you for your consideration.

Nicely worded, Kurt. I agree with you completely; the JCW seems like taking a gun to a knife fight, at least on more open courses where the power advantage is put into play.

[John Stimson]

So you don't think it matters that the turbo JCW models have an open differential?

Executive summary of my previous post:

2006 JCW: more power, has LSD, same suspension. Should not be in DS.

2007-8 JCW: does not appear to exist, just dealer installed accessories. Should not be part of the proposal.

2009-2011 JCW: More power, more torque, open differential. Who cares? Not a threat, if you lose in DS to one of these, it's because you were out-driven.

[Kurt Rahn]

So you don't think it matters that the turbo JCW models have an open differential?

It does have an open diff but it uses BMW's e-diff, which utilizes the traction control/ABS to control drive wheel speed. I've never driven a car with the e-diff (Chris Teague's 135 has it, so he'd probably be a good person to ask), but I've heard it does a good job of approximating the functionality of a LSD. The one downside I've heard is that on track the system can over heat the brakes, but that doesn't really apply in our case. It'd be interesting to drive both cars back to back. I should mention that the reason I got the car I did was to get the mechanical diff...I probably got one of the last ones off the factory line. But that was more personal preference. I tend toward mechanical stuff than electronic driver nannies.

[Michael Wood]

[John Stimson]

I was underwhelmed by the brake differentials when I drove a BMW 330 PP, and a couple of different Boxsters. Better than an open differential, but definitely not as good as a torsen.

It seems that for the R56 MINIS (2007-present), a lot of the JCW add-ons could be ordered for installation on a new car at the port facility, including the Cooper and Cooper S. Including:

JCW brake rotors
JCW tuning kit (yields 189HP 2007-2010, 195HP 2011+)
JCW suspension kit
JCW strut tower brace

plus a bunch of other stuff that wouldn't affect autocross performance.

So under the already existing rules and classification, it would be legal to run any 2007-2011 Cooper S with power only slightly less than a JCW, same suspension as a JCW, and with a mechanical differential which you can't get on a JCW. If that's the case, it seems pointless to separate the JCW model from the Cooper S.

The SEB could change the stock category rules to forbid port installed items, but I expect that finishing assembly at the port is still standard industry procedure. If the only items being installed at port are performance kits, that would make such a rule change a lot easier.

[Michael Wood]

^John, I think you've brought some helpful clarity to the proposal ;)

[Craig Naylor]

Port installed has been an issue in the past. Does Port installed = Factory installed, or does it = Dealer installed, no matter where the part it ends up being listed on the MSRP.

I think it had to do with either Subaru Impreza 2.5's or WRX's back ~ 10 years ago.

I don't remember what the outcome was.

[Michael Wood]

Port installed has been an issue in the past. Does Port installed = Factory installed, or does it = Dealer installed, no matter where the part it ends up being listed on the MSRP.

I think it had to do with either Subaru Impreza 2.5's or WRX's back ~ 10 years ago.

I don't remember what the outcome was.

If you're talking about the extra wheels that were delivered with some WRX's, those currently aren't allowed.

There's clear guidance on the port installed option legality in section 12.4 of the rule book.

[Craig Naylor]

quote edited to relevant parts

Port installed has been an issue in the past. I think it had to do with either Subaru Impreza 2.5's or WRX's back ~ 10 years ago. I don't remember what the outcome was.

There's clear guidance on the port installed option legality in section 12.4 of the rule book.

Michael, thank you for looking up and clarifying the rule # related to the question. Just so you can see I wasn't off my rocker on my post...

2011 rule book:
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. Port-installed options provided by the factory are considered to be the same as those installed on the factory production line. 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.

As recently as 2008 Rule book:
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.

Note the lack of the "port installed" sentence. Again the Impreza (of some form) if I recall correctly was the cause of the change after multiple rounds of proposals denials via SEB letters.

[John Stimson]

The manufacturer's port facility has been considered part of the factory for many years. The issue with the WRX accessory package that you're thinking about came up in 2003 and made it into Appendix F of the rules in 2004. The decision was based on which items were installed at the port facility, as referenced in the clarification:

SUBARU WRX OPTIONS
The following items are port-installed options on the Subaru WRX, are
listed when installed on the vehicle’s window sticker, and pending
evidence to the contrary are considered legal: carbon fiber trim, turbo
boost gauge, titanium shift knob, short throw shifter, rear diff protector,
spoilers, arm rest extension.

A clarification about port-installed equipment was added to the definition of "standard part" in chapter 12 in the 2009 rule book. Sometime just before then the SEB made a general decision to stop putting clarifications in Appendix F and include them within the relevant rule.

[Kurt Rahn]

What does this mean?

This definition does not allow the updating or backdating of parts.

Does it mean it is not legal for me to order all the parts that comprise the (for example) 2010-spec parts for the JCW tuning package (which is supposedly port installed) and put them on my car tomorrow?

Rule 13 seems to say it's legal as long as it was the 2010 spec parts and I got the entire parts list on the package:

Option package conversions may be performed between specific vehicles of a particular make and model, but only between configurations from within a particular model year. Such conversions must be totally complete and the resultant car must meet all requirements of this Section.

[KJ Christopher]

What does this mean?

This definition does not allow the updating or backdating of parts.

Does it mean it is not legal for me to order all the parts that comprise the (for example) 2010-spec parts for the JCW tuning package (which is supposedly port installed) and put them on my car tomorrow?

Rule 13 seems to say it's legal as long as it was the 2010 spec parts and I got the entire parts list on the package:

Option package conversions may be performed between specific vehicles of a particular make and model, but only between configurations from within a particular model year. Such conversions must be totally complete and the resultant car must meet all requirements of this Section.

Update/backdate deals with model years. You couldn't put 2010 spec parts on a 2009 or 2011.

[John Stimson]

Updating and backdating means swapping in parts from other model years.

Converting between options packages within the same year is legal in Stock, as long as the result is a configuration that could have been ordered/delivered as built by the manufacturer.

Packages must be converted completely, but line-item options can be added or removed individually, as long as they were available with the other packages or trim level that you're running.

[Kurt Rahn]

Got it. Thanks for the clarification. Time to start saving pennies, I guess.