It's here...

[Andy Bettencourt]

http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/06-2...ck-addendum.pdf (http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/06-2-fastrack-addendum.pdf)

[Matt Rowe]

First, I want to say congratulations and thank you to all the ITAC members for working on this. I think it's a big step forward. :023: :happy204: :smilie_pokal:

Now for the second guessing. :)

Okay, so looking down the list of affected cars I have to ask. Did every currently classed car get run through the process? It appears that the list is biased to the cars that are either newer or more popular. Am I reading too much into things? Could this also be a case where the CRB selectively allowed/disallowed changes line by line? There were only 43 weight adjustments and 4 cars that were moved to a different group. Out of 300+ cars classsed I doubt those were the only changes needed, especially when the older cars are the ones more likely to be classed under different assumptions etc.

Again, thank you and please don't take these comments as overly critical. I'm just trying to understand IF there was any preference given to newer or popular cars and what the reasoning behind that might be.


On edit:

Looking at the line

If the car is not on the list, we have no legitimate data showing a need for adjustment or the car is no longer run in SCCA events.

I take that to mean the types of car I am thinking of did not have enough legitimate data. Does that mean that submitting such data would be well received? That sounds too much like opeing the door to the kind of lobbying that production deals with.

[Bill Miller]

Yeeee Haaaa! Nice work guys!!! :023:

Here's the meat of the IT stuff. Effective 2/1/06


ITS
1. BMW 325i/is (2 & 4 door) (92-95), p. 18, change the specs to read as follows: Notes: Trunk mounted fuel cell with no larger capacity than
stock. 27mm SIR required and must comply with GTCS section 17.1.2.F.4.i.10.
2. Ford Contour V-6 (non-SVT) (1995), p. 18, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2730.
3. Mazda RX-7 (13B) (84-85), p. 19, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2350.
4. Nissan/Datsun 260-Z (73-74), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2480.
5. Nissan/Datsun 280-Z (75-78), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2505.
6. Nissan/Datsun 280-ZX 2+2 (79-83), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2530.
7. Nissan/Datsun 280-ZX (79-83), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2530.
8. Nissan 200-SX V-6 (1987), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2725.
9. Nissan 300-ZX (84-88), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2725.
10. Nissan 300-ZX 2+2 (1986), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2725.
11. Porsche 924-S (86-88), p. 21, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2575.
12. Porsche 944 (2V) (83-88), p. 21, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2575.
13. Toyota Supra (82-85), p. 22, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2750.
ITA
1. Acura Integra 1.6 (86-89), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2200.
2. Acura Integra (90-93), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2595.
3. Acura Integra (GS/LS/RS (3 door) (94-00), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2620.
4. BMW 318 (E36) (92-94), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
5. BMW 318ti & Club Sport (1995), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
6. BMW 318ti Sport (96-99), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
7. BMW 325e/es (2 & 4 door) (84-87), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2550.
8. Honda Civic Si (88-91), p. 26, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2250.
9. Honda CRX Si (88-91), p. 26, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2250.
10. Mazda MX-5 / Miata (90-93), p. 27, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2255.
11. Mazda Protégé LX (90-93), p. 27, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2280.
12. Mazda Protégé ES (95-98), p. 27, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2280.
13. Mazda RX-7 (12A) (79-85), p. 28, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2280.
14. Mitsubishi Eclipse (95-98), p. 28, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
15. Nissan 240-SX / S13 (89-90), p. 28, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2630.
16. Plymouth Laser / Eagle Talon / Mitsubishi Eclipse 2.0L, p. 29, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2500.
17. Pontiac Fiero GT & Formula V-6 2.8 (1988), p. 29, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
February Addendum 2006 SPORTSCAR F-55
18. Toyota Celica GTS (86-88), p. 30, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2500.
19. Toyota Corolla GTS (84-85), p. 30, correct the model years to 84-87.
20. Toyota Corolla GTS (86-89), p. 30, correct the model years to 88-92, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2300.
21. Toyota MR-2 1.6L (85-89), p. 30, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2270.
22. Volkswagen Jetta GLI (1991), p. 31, add the 92 model year.
ITB
1. Ford Mustang 2.3 (79-93), p. 34, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2550.
2. Mazda MX-6 (88-91), p. 36, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2530.
3. Toyota Celica III 2.4 (83-85), p. 40, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2350.
4. Toyota Celica III GTS (83-85), p. 40, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2425.
5. Volkswagen Rabbit GTI (83-84), p. 41, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2080.
6. Volkswagen Scirocco II 8V (83-88), p. 41, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2130.

[Bill Miller]

And here are the reclassifications:


Item 1. Effective 11/1/06, reclassify the ITB Plymouth Horizon 1.7 (1978-79) to ITC at 2,050 lbs.
Item 2. Effective 11/1/06, reclassify the ITB Plymouth Horizon TC3 1.7 (1979-80) to ITC at 2,110 lbs.
Item 3. Effective 11/1/06, reclassify the ITS Mazda MX-3 V-6 to ITA at 2,510 lbs
Item 4. Effective 11/1/06, reclassify the ITS Toyota Celica GT Coupe & Liftback (1989-93) to ITA at 2,590 lbs.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 20 2006, 11:45 AM
First, I want to say congratulations and thank you to all the ITAC members for working on this. I think it's a big step forward. :023: :happy204: :smilie_pokal:

Now for the second guessing. :)

Okay, so looking down the list of affected cars I have to ask. Did every currently classed car get run through the process? It appears that the list is biased to the cars that are either newer or more popular. Am I reading too much into things? Could this also be a case where the CRB selectively allowed/disallowed changes line by line? There were only 43 weight adjustments and 4 cars that were moved to a different group. Out of 300+ cars classsed I doubt those were the only changes needed, especially when the older cars are the ones more likely to be classed under different assumptions etc.

Again, thank you and please don't take these comments as overly critical. I'm just trying to understand IF there was any preference given to newer or popular cars and what the reasoning behind that might be.

71404


Matt,

Good question. All the cars were looked at. The issue is that we had to determine what line to draw in the sand in terms of when we wanted to recommend a correction. In MY mind, when a car was ~100lbs out of whack according to the process, it got separated and looked at very closly for inclusion on this list with a new number (up or down).

Some exceptions to that thought process exist. The 1.6 Miata only gains 50 or so pounds. I thought that was a good idea for a couple reasons. 1. The process says it should weigh that, and 2. There are enough Mazda-conspiracy-theorists in this club that I wanted to make sure we were where we needed to be on that car, especially seeing as how I think there will be an exodus from SM in the near future. I can expound on this more if it gets anyones panties in a bunch.

I can't say this enough, we aren't trying to balanace the category on the tip of a pin here, we are just trying to have each car looked at through the same pair of glasses. I think it is a great basis from which to move forward.

YMMV.

AB

[JeffYoung]

Andy, and everyone, thanks for the great work.

Am I reading this right -- no weight on the E36, but a bigger restrictor?

The 944s got the help they need. Hope that brings them out en masse.

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

I'll say it again. Nice job by you, Darin, George, Peter, Jake, and the rest of the ITAC. I know this took a lot of hard work, and IMHO, is a major step forward in the history of IT. :023: :happy204: :smilie_pokal:

Now, let the games begin!! :P

[stevel]

Nice job Andy and all!

I think this is a step in the right direction and ITA is going to be awesome this year! Lots of different guys at the front and lots of close racing. Can't wait!

steve

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Jan 20 2006, 12:04 PM
Andy, and everyone, thanks for the great work.

Am I reading this right -- no weight on the E36, but a bigger restrictor?

The 944s got the help they need. Hope that brings them out en masse.

71410


As to the SIR on the BMW...there were two options:

1. Raise the weight of the E36 325 to where the process said it should be
2. Restrict the HP of the E36 325 to where the process said it should be given it's current weight.

SIR technology has been proven in other classes. It's not so much the size of the RP in this case as it is the size AND design. Mathamatical calculations are being used (and verified) to size the SIR. More info can be had with a little help from Google. PLEASE don't think this is just a simple reduction in restrictor size. Do the research on the technology before you simply state it is x% smaller, etc.

The BMW's should not get any slower if they were using a proper RP this year. This technology just prevents cheating and mandates the HP levels, given a weight target. As with any RP however, it has much less effect on lower RPM charateristics (like torque) than it does higher RPM charateristics, like HP. The BMW should now fit the process without potential for monkey business. If it is still the car to have in ITS, then it is the car to have. It fits the process...period.

AB

[RacerBill]

Originally posted by stevel@Jan 20 2006, 01:07 PM
Nice job Andy and all!

I think this is a step in the right direction and ITA is going to be awesome this year! Lots of different guys at the front and lots of close racing. Can't wait!

steve

71412


:023: :happy204: :023: :happy204:

Thanks to the entire ITAC!

Stop by my paddock anytime at Mid-Ohio or IRP this year for a cold one!

[turboICE]

Picked up 100 pounds, but until I see otherwise I will say good to the overall process - and I will say great job on the effort put in on the project.

ITA battles should be real interesting in 2006.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, not griping at all, just trying to understand: why not adjust the weight?

A single make SIR seems against class-philosophy to me. Correcting the weight to where it should be -- just don't see the downside to that.

[turboICE]

As someone who just picked up weight I am seeing plenty of downside on additional brake and tire wear, changed dynamics in suspension geometry and handling. I think it can be pretty easy to get into the downside of weight adds doing more than to adjust power to weight potential. At some point it makes more sense to decrease the power than to add weight, IMO. Unless the argument is that they are so advantaged in handling and braking that you want to impact that as well as power to weight.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Jan 20 2006, 11:28 AM
Andy, not griping at all, just trying to understand: why not adjust the weight?

A single make SIR seems against class-philosophy to me. Correcting the weight to where it should be -- just don't see the downside to that.

71419



Andy,

Please don't take this this wrong way, but I'm inclined to agree w/ Jeff on this one. And that's based on the way the PCA section of the ITCS is worded. Certainly lead impacts all areas of the car (acceleration, braking, lateral load), so more lead is going to cost more in terms of tires and brakes, as well as increase lap times.

Here's my concern. What happens when someone requests their whiz-bang puddlebee classified? Is there a targeted max. weight for the class, or will it be spec'd based on the potential output in IT prep? If the goal is to set a max hp AND a max weight upper bound for ITS (doesn't matter for ITA-C, as the cars could be moved up a class), then I think the SIR is absolutely the best way to go. I don't think it benefits anyone to saddle a car w/ boat loads of lead, when you have an alternative technology to help control lap times.

So, if the goal is a max weight of 2850# and a hp output of 200 (don't know if that's what it is or not), for a 14.25 lb/hp ratio, would that whiz-bang puddlebee, that makes 225hp, come in at 3205#, or would it come in @ 2850# w/ a SIR that would limit output to 200hp? Clearly the end result is the same, in terms of lp/hp, but @ 3205#, that w-b puddlebee is going to use up brakes and tires faster than a 2850# E36 w/ the SIR.

[turboICE]

The puddlebee may not be classed as it is beyond the performance envelope of IT? I don't know just a guess based on my limited understanding.

Knowing what we do today about the performance potential of the E36 would it have been classed in ITS as within the performance potential?

Purely an uneducated guess (but I am trying to learn) but maybe it shouldn't have been classed in IT but now that it is here doing the best possible with it?

[Andy Bettencourt]

We gave the CRB both options, they went with the SIR.

The outside performance envelope is dictated primarily by the stock/IT-prep hp of a car. Anything that is 200+ stock hp is pretty much outside the envelope. You COULD place anything in IT with a SIR but...

This car and situation is an anomoly...treat it as such.

AB

[Doc Bro]

How about the "development process" of the car. In other words if you know your car will be restricted to say 200 hp then is there any reason to go all out. The lead approach equalizes as well and seems more consistent with the IT philosophy.

If I were given the choice of limiting the HP to a defined #, and having less weight I would definitely take that as opposed to unrestricted legal HP and gaining lead.........who wouldn't?

I think the ITS e36 got a very generous and financially rewarding break. I'd be shocked if there were a ton of upset e36 ITS guys.

Good job guys for making it happen!!!

R

[BMW RACER]

1. BMW 325i/is (2 & 4 door) (92-95), p. 18, change the specs to read as follows: Notes: Trunk mounted fuel cell with no larger capacity than
stock. 27mm SIR required and must comply with GTCS section 17.1.2.F.4.i.10.

I'm confused! Going down from 56mm to 27mm restricter is a big jump, is that right?

I don't have my 2006 GCR yet. What is GTCS section 17.1.2.F.4.i.10?

[JamesB]

GTCS 17.1.2.F.4.i.10. Single Inlet Restrictors
a. The intent of this rule is to have a sealed system from
the Restrictor to the Intake Ports of the Cylinder Head.
All of the air entering the Intake Ports shall pass through
the specified Restrictor. Modification or addition to any
part of the Intake System that allows the introduction of
air into the Intake Ports that has not passed through the
specified Restrictor is prohibited.
b. The Engine Air Intake System must be fitted with an
aluminum air restrictor. The Intake System is defined
as an assembly of parts, including but not restricted
to: the Restrictor, Restrictor Housing, Ducting, Filters,
Air Box, Velocity Stacks, Throttle Body, Carburetors,
Manifold and Manifold Gasket up to the Intake Ports on
the Cylinder Head.
c. The Restrictor must be round in shape. The maximum
ID of the Restrictor is listed on the vehicle’s spec line.
The Restrictor’s maximum ID must be maintained for a
minimum length of 3mm. Restrictor mounting/placement
within the intake system is free, but must allow
accessibility for measurement. It is acceptable to have
some minor disassembly of the intake system to provide
access to the Restrictor for measurement. Measurement
device and restrictor shall be similar temperatures when
used.
d. Sealing the Restrictor from its supply of air must cause
the engine to stop within 4 seconds. This check is to be
made at an engine speed of approximately 2500 rpm.
The sealed airbox must withstand this test. Pressure
sensors present inside the intake system must be
disconnected during this check.
e. All GTL cars that have either an IR or SIR size (restricted)
listed on their spec line shall utilize an SIR for National
competitions.

[xr4racer]

Andy, as a person who has been involved in all of the GTL SIR debate for a couple of years, what have you seen to lead you to believe that it works? I am sure you are aware of the huge problems that this has caused in GTL and that are looming in GT2. Many people in those classes that are national and runoffs motivated have balked at spending the approximately $1000 necessary to just get the SIR and a sealed airbox, let alone all of the engine development and testing necessary to maximize the use of a SIR. Granted the engine development side of the equation does not pertain to the IT ranks but at least some of the cost does (approx $350.00 for the SIR).
Don't get me wrong I am extremely happy with the work that you and all of the board have done with the weights. I have a 2nd gen RX-7, but I am looking forward to the Datsuns, GSL-SE's etc. being up front and seeing more of the previously "weight challenged" cars being built and out there competing. I am not so happy to have the SIR included in the same sentence as IT. Hopefully the BMW competitors will not go elsewhere as a result. If this is just a one time radical move to fix a clearly wrong classification, then it is wonderful, if it is "the view for the future" I am not so excited about it.

Matt Miller
#7 ITS RX-7 MVR

[Knestis]

http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/GCR2006.pdf

Page 40

K

[its66]

:happy204: :happy204: :happy204: :happy204: :happy204:

Great job guys, this is the type of thinking that we need.

I know that race results aren't the sole determining factor, but, in CFR, the 325e basically annihilates the rest of the field. IF they find a way to actually pull the weight out of the car legally, the 325e will likely pull even further away from the rest of the field.

What do these cars seem to do elsewhere?

[tderonne]

First of all thanks for all the time and hard work.

Second, a small gripe. Missed a car. ITA Ford Escort GT. Currently classed at 2430 pounds. Kind of an also ran in ITA. Not an ITB car by any means. It's twin, with the same powertrain, the Mazda Protege, got a break from 2510 to 2280 pounds.

Guess I need to write a letter. Seems like a simple thing to do.

[RacerBowie]

Originally posted by its66@Jan 20 2006, 02:43 PM
:happy204: :happy204: :happy204: :happy204: :happy204:

Great job guys, this is the type of thinking that we need.

I know that race results aren't the sole determining factor, but, in CFR, the 325e basically annihilates the rest of the field. IF they find a way to actually pull the weight out of the car legally, the 325e will likely pull even further away from the rest of the field.

What do these cars seem to do elsewhere?

71435


I have never heard of another fast 325e anywhere. I know the stock one I own is a slug. There is one at Rd. Atl sometimes that is off the pace. I always heard there was no way to get them to rev, but that is heresay.

I am a little bummed about the 50lbs for the 1.6 miata, but that is the way it works. I am sure we will have some fun racing this year!

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by tderonne@Jan 20 2006, 01:49 PM
First of all thanks for all the time and hard work.

Second, a small gripe. Missed a car. ITA Ford Escort GT. Currently classed at 2430 pounds. Kind of an also ran in ITA. Not an ITB car by any means. It's twin, with the same powertrain, the Mazda Protege, got a break from 2510 to 2280 pounds.

Guess I need to write a letter. Seems like a simple thing to do.

71436


Isn't this the thing about PCA's we were all worried about? Additional letters to correct specific cars? I'd hate to be the guy sorting the CRB mail.

And Tim, if anything the numbers on the Escort seem to be in line with everything else, the protege seems a bit light now for some reason. I assume that's based on the adders being used.

[tderonne]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 20 2006, 07:02 PM
Isn't this the thing about PCA's we were all worried about? Additional letters to correct specific cars? I'd hate to be the guy sorting the CRB mail.

And Tim, if anything the numbers on the Escort seem to be in line with everything else, the protege seems a bit light now for some reason. I assume that's based on the adders being used.

71438



Maybe a typo on the Proteges? 2280 is a huge change from 2510.

And yeah, not trying to open a can of worms, just a 2280 car vs. a 2430 with the exact same powertrain, brakes, and suspension is pretty lopsided. Same exact inputs into the performance model. Ford ovals aren't THAT heavy. Darn Mazda conspiracy!

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 20 2006, 11:56 AM
The puddlebee may not be classed as it is beyond the performance envelope of IT? I don't know just a guess based on my limited understanding.

Knowing what we do today about the performance potential of the E36 would it have been classed in ITS as within the performance potential?

Purely an uneducated guess (but I am trying to learn) but maybe it shouldn't have been classed in IT but now that it is here doing the best possible with it?

71423



Well, I asked this, because I was thinking of the '86.5 - '87 3.0 7M-GE engine rated @ 200hp. The car is spec'd @ 3380#. Maybe it's just a case of nobody racing one.

Please don't get me wrong, I think the ITAC have done a great job!! :023: :happy204:

[DavidM]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 20 2006, 12:23 PM
Picked up 100 pounds, but until I see otherwise I will say good to the overall process - and I will say great job on the effort put in on the project.

ITA battles should be real interesting in 2006.

71415


Yeah, guess I'll have to read the GCR section on how to mount ballast now :(. I was right at minimum weight with after race fuel. I think the intention of the changes is good and applaud the effort. Time will tell if the results match.

I'm scratching my head on the BMW restrictor plate. Weight affects more than just acceleration. The BMWs will be slower on the straights with the plate, but will still be able to brake in the same place (maybe even later since they won't be carrying as much speed) and still carry the same speed though the corner. Tire wear isn't affected either (as somebody else mentioned). I'm not in ITS, but I think I'd be a little peeved if my car got weight and the BMW got a smaller restrictor. Can I put a restrictor on my 240 instead of the extra weight? I'm guessing the big issue with my car was power as well. [I'm not really asking for that, but you get the point.]

David

[Andy Bettencourt]

1. I am looking into the Protege thing.
2. The CRB chose the SIR over the weight. They must have decided that 3100+ lbs was too much and the SIR was the better solution.
3. Individual cars did not get singled out for gains or reductions, the process dictated the results. It is not a penalty for performance. It's just numbers that can be defended and repeated. No dart boards.

PCA's would be used for exactly the Protege issue. If it is a mistake, we can fix it. What we won't use them for is a "Please reduce the weight of my xxx by 30 pounds because it will make it more competitive..."

AB

[JeffYoung]

Andy, thanks for the clarification on the BMW being an anomaly.

I guess, the immediate post above, I just don't see the reason for a single-make anomaly where the problem could be corrected by weight -- weight that should have been there in the first place.

I'm not ticked about it or anything, and frankly am more concerned that the BMW drivers will feel MORE singled out and more likely to go run BMWCCA and not SCCA with this new rule than before. Weight is easy to put in and take out -- setting up an SIR car v. a non-SIR car does not seem to be.

It just seems really contrary to what IT is about. I thought we set the weights at a reasonable percentage curb weight with mods for performance and then let people have at it with the engine.

[seckerich]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 20 2006, 02:19 PM
1. I am looking into the Protege thing.
2. The CRB chose the SIR over the weight. They must have decided that 3100+ lbs was too much and the SIR was the better solution.
3. Individual cars did not get singled out for gains or reductions, the process dictated the results. It is not a penalty for performance. It's just numbers that can be defended and repeated. No dart boards.

PCA's would be used for exactly the Protege issue. If it is a mistake, we can fix it. What we won't use them for is a "Please reduce the weight of my xxx by 30 pounds because it will make it more competitive..."

AB

71447

Andy and all those involved in the process--thanks for all the work. I believe the CRB is still all wet with the BMW and the restrictor, but I will wait to see what effect it has before I make any assumptions. The car will still brake, corner, and accelerate off corners the same as it does now. We just might still be able to see it when the speed tops out!! A prelude weighs more and it was not a problem?? Spec BMW will not end with this. Great to see the help the slower cars in the class got--should be some fun racing.

[stevel]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 20 2006, 05:33 PM
As someone who just picked up weight I am seeing plenty of downside on additional brake and tire wear, changed dynamics in suspension geometry and handling. I think it can be pretty easy to get into the downside of weight adds doing more than to adjust power to weight potential. At some point it makes more sense to decrease the power than to add weight, IMO. Unless the argument is that they are so advantaged in handling and braking that you want to impact that as well as power to weight.

71421


Ed, don't worry about it. Our camp is actually excited about this change. Why? Because we were a good 70lbs overweight to begin with and the cars were still competitive with the Acura's (most of which were at weight I believe). We just couldn't get them down to weight with the hatchback version of this car. So, with the Acura's gaining 125lbs and us (our 240's anyway) only gaining 30 or so lbs. Our guys will be even more competitive. And seeing that at times we were running at 2600lbs brakes were not a problem (with the right pads they could actually outbrake the Acura's with there small brakes) and they still handled like a dream, and depending on the corner of the track, sometimes better than the Acura's. I know our two 240 drivers are looking forward to this.

steve

[turboICE]

Definitely was a response to the question of what are the downsides to adding weight instead of restricting power and not a complaint. My prior post indicated that I was going with good for the class until I saw otherwise. I think ITA racing is going to be even more exciting.

[JeffYoung]

You guys in A have a great class right now. The CRX, the Integra, the 240sx, the Miata and now maybe the 1st Gen RX7 again have a shot at winning. Should be very interesting next year.

[R2 Racing]

OMG, for the first time ever my fat ass is going to make weight!

My '92 Integra picked up an additional 115lbs to 2595 but being that it always weighed in at about 2580 anyway, it's a great thing for me! Now the rest of the Integra and CRX drivers will be lugging around all of the extra weight I've been since day 1.

[xr4racer]

As I stated earlier, I have been waiting for these type of changes for a long time, but many do not make any sense. In my class, ITS, looking into the weight changes they look good on paper until it comes time to try to do it. Many are totally impossible. For instance GSL-SE can lose 180 lbs, 280Z -225 lbs, 280zx -240 lbs. Obviously these are unattainable weights with the current rules. Why not add weight to the faster cars and reduce the slower cars by less? What this encourages is minimal cages and removing items not allowed in the rules.
In addition all of the cars must not have ben put through the "process" because either the ITA Capri I or Capri II is terribly wrong because they are identical cars mechanically with the Capri I at 2390 and the Capri II at 2670. 280 pound difference with the same brakes, engine, trans etc???

Matt

[1stGenBoy]

Originally posted by xr4racer@Jan 20 2006, 10:03 PM
As I stated earlier, I have been waiting for these type of changes for a long time, but many do not make any sense. In my class, ITS, looking into the weight changes they look good on paper until it comes time to try to do it. Many are totally impossible. For instance GSL-SE can lose 180 lbs, 280Z -225 lbs, 280zx -240 lbs. Obviously these are unattainable weights with the current rules. Why not add weight to the faster cars and reduce the slower cars by less? What this encourages is minimal cages and removing items not allowed in the rules.
In addition all of the cars must not have ben put through the "process" because either the ITA Capri I or Capri II is terribly wrong because they are identical cars mechanically with the Capri I at 2390 and the Capri II at 2670. 280 pound difference with the same brakes, engine, trans etc???

Matt

71459

Matt,
This was the sentence that was in fastrack. Maybe this might help.

"If the car is not on the list, we have no legitimate data showing a need for adjustment or the car is no longer run in SCCA events."

I'm sure we missed some but, we did try our best. We did not want to guess at cars we had no idea on if they were out of wack or not. Andy explained the whole thing better than I could anyway.
If something is clearly wrong I'm sure we will get it staightened out.

Bob

[ddewhurst]

:happy204: :happy204: :happy204:

I'm late to this party.

I would like to thank the ITAC/CRB/BoD for allowing the 1st gen RX-7 12A to remain in ITA & for the 100 pound reduction in weight. :023:

Weight reduction:

Car/driver dry today at 2360#

Driver 220# shall lose 30#

Eliminate tar/sound stuff est 20#

Remove door glass/stuff est 30#

Car/driver dry now at 2280#

I bet I can find some more legal #&#39;s for reduction. <_<

Thank you ;)

ps: Andy, Darin & George, sorry for the $hit I gave you over the past year (?) about the potential reclassing the 1st gen RX-7 to ITB. In my mind ya did the correct thing. Adding 220# & 6 inch rims made zero safety sense to me. :023:

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by stevel@Jan 20 2006, 09:21 PM
We just couldn&#39;t get them down to weight with the hatchback version of this car.
71455


Definately an ancillary benefit of the adjustment upward, is that the hatchback is now a viable option for ITA... That means more cars available!

Let&#39;s face it... As long as it&#39;s competitive, it&#39;s always easier, and usually less expensive, to build a car that needs to be heavier, as opposed to one that needs to be lighter...

Maybe you guys won&#39;t be getting so cold on those late fall or early spring race days! ;) (meaning... you can keep your heaters in tact, etc... :D )


Thanks for all the positive, and optimistically negative, feedback guys... We are trying out best, and have our fingers crossed that this works the way we&#39;ve been thinking it will... I hope you all see that it was an honest effort to get things in balance... Hopefully that is what we have done...

Now... GO BUILD THOSE CARS! :023:

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 20 2006, 05:47 PM
:happy204: :happy204: :happy204:

.......
ps: Andy, Darin & George, sorry for the $hit I gave you over the past year (?) about the potential reclassing the 1st gen RX-7 to ITB. In my mind ya did the correct thing. Adding 220# & 6 inch rims made zero safety sense to me. :023:

71463


What about me???

;)

David, the RX-7 could have worked in B, but there were issues...adding the weight would suck, of course, but we never determined an actual amount.
The cage issue was a killer, and everyone always wanted to make it work in A, if at all possible.

That said, it&#39;s still no overdog in A. At many tracks, it will still be a "tweener" even in the best hands. But at other tracks, it could be fun.

ITA will be great. The Integra is gaining weight, but not many...if any, ever made min weight anyway, so I am not sure if there will be a huge effect on them. So, depending on tracks, the contenders will be both Miatas, the Teg, the CRX, the 240SX, the NX2000, the Neons, and maybe even cars like the MR2 and the Fiero and the RX-7, and even others could be there up front... I doubt we&#39;ll see many Corvairs, though! Darn!

On the E36, (Jeff, mostly), we did discuss the possible alternatives to the restrictor, and I think that your worry about the whole group leaving due to the SIR is, hopefully, wrong. Process weight for that car is big, IF you choose middle of the road HP numbers. Even heavier if you believe the upper numbers. It seems that some are able to get big numbers from that engine or......

So, adding over 200 pounds..WELL over...... would have really added up . Remember, they run the same 7" wide wheels, and at some point, tire response and wear goes non linear. So the weight ACTS like more. So we gave alternatives to the CRB.

While the SIR will cost money to implement, it&#39;s not a lot in the grand scheme of things, and in the end it should be a net savings in consumables like tires and brakes, etc.

Personally, I think that the E36 guys should be OVERJOYED....the SIR will cancel any overdogs HP wise, whether due to cams or whatever, and the have nots won&#39;t feel a thing. The haves should be clipped enough to fit the process.

Remember, the top dogs in the class say they are held up by the E36 in the corners and the braking areas....but they can&#39;t get to them on the straights. Hopefully, the SIR will result in fairer fights, AND save money in the long run.

I think the concept of IT...the philosophy...includes, where possible and appropriate, measures to help keep racing affordable..or at least to help avoid throwing money away. I think this is in line with that. Keep in mind that the car is stock at 189hp, but is really underrated...it is an anomoly, and if there were a class above, consideration would have been given to moving it and letting it really fly.

We&#39;ll see.

[Ron Earp]

I think the changes are great, but I still feel we sort of changed class philosophy with the SIR. Weight would have been fine for the BMWs. And the “too much weight” doesn’t hold a lot of water really. There are other cars in S with higher weights and some with much poorer brakes than a BMW.

E46 3 Series at 3000lbs
Ford Mustang V6 at 3100lbs
Prelude SH at 2905lbs
Supra at 3380lbs!!!!

I suppose we wait and see what happens. I can see some logic in what has been written with the SIR affecting everyone and leveling the field somewhat. But the car should have weighed more from the beginning. If it was too heavy at that weight and ate brakes, wore tires out, and generally was a poor race car then well, well, well – the documents say competitiveness is not guaranteed.

Maybe we can put it in ITU at a correct weight………

Ron

[Joe Harlan]

Nice job guys! I only wish I could have been a part of this positive move.

I look forward the results of the SIR as I am a strong believer in the technology. Once it is proven I hope to see other classifications added based on the technology in the future. :happy204: B)

[ddewhurst]

:happy204: :happy204: :happy204: for Jake.......


***What about me??? ;)***

Jake, Im sorry I don&#39;t watch the score card to keep informed of whose who in the politcal arena. Just when did you join the politics ? I mean, when did you become accecpted to the ITAC ? Mid year, I notice a slightly different posts presentation. Congrats my friend. :023: The 1st gen may not be at the top but IMHJ it&#39;s in the class where it belongs. ;)

***I doubt we&#39;ll see many Corvairs, though! Darn!***

By coincidence I talked with Charlie Clark this p.m. & we talked about his & John Brakke&#39;s corvairs. Charlie still has his.

[ddewhurst]

Group: Members
Posts: 1,683
Joined: 9-February 01
From: Wauwatosa, WI, USA
Member No.: 111

View Vehicles

Warn: (0%) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

<<<<<<<< What dose "Warn: (0%)" mean above below View Vehicles ? :o

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 20 2006, 08:21 PM
Group: Members
Posts: 1,683
Joined: 9-February 01
From: Wauwatosa, WI, USA
Member No.: 111

View Vehicles

Warn: (0%) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

<<<<<<<< What dose "Warn: (0%)" mean above below View Vehicles ? :o

71479


I am betting that it is a measure put in place by the webmaster to let you know how close you are to being bounced off the board. Seemingly 5 strikes and you are out if the green lights mean anything.

I think we can only see our own warning level.
AB

[robits325is]

Did anyone install and test a SIR on an ITS BMW E-36 to see the results before implementing this rule change or is this another SCCA experiment to be funded by BMW drivers?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by robits325is@Jan 20 2006, 09:43 PM
Did anyone install and test a SIR on an ITS BMW E-36 to see the results before implementing this rule change or is this another SCCA experiment to be funded by BMW drivers?

71485


Do some more research on the topic Rob before we have to hear the back-handed comments.

AB

[jhooten]

The ITAC drops me to ITA and removes 140 pounds but the CRB&#39;s tells me my "motor" is too big for production.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by jhooten@Jan 20 2006, 10:16 PM
The ITAC drops me to ITA and removes 140 pounds but the CRB&#39;s tells me my "motor" is too big for production.

71489

I don&#39;t think you got dropped to ITA...

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 20 2006, 08:28 PM
I don&#39;t think you got dropped to ITA...

AB

71490



I hate it when that happens.... B)

[jhooten]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 21 2006, 03:28 AM
I don&#39;t think you got dropped to ITA...

AB

71490


You are correct, it was a bad cut and paste job in an e-mail I got. Either that or he did it on purpose to jerk my chain. Should have confirmed the info first.

[ddewhurst]

Andy, thanks for the info.

There are 5 blue rectangles to the right side of this message. Dont remember the blue rectangles being additive. I think the stuff showed up today all at once. <_< No green light.

I sent a message to the webmaster asking for information.

Warn: (0%) - - - - -

[xr4racer]

I think the question "has anyone tested the BMW SIR on the track yet?" deserves an answer. Disregard his other comment and please answer the question, I can take a wild guess at the answer. For people that are looking for a place to read a little about SIR&#39;s look at www.raetech.com.
I also have not seen any comments on how the ITS cars that lost all of the weight by these new rules will actually do it unless they hire Nicole Ritchie to drive for them or use remote controls.
Joe Harlan probably has built ITS Datsuns, how much can they legally get down to? I have a couple of friends that laughed when I told them the new weights of the 280z and 280zx that they run, and they said the ZX could probably lose 85 lbs and the 280z around 25 lbs.

[mlytle]

holy crap. i thought an sir would be something simple to stick in the intake. looks like it will take a entire redesign of the intake track/airbox, plus the >$350 cost of a new restrictor, and new tuning, on top of the restrictor and tuning costs from last year. geeez. it may be cheaper to drop in some hot cams and go race in bmwcca.

so what is the target hp that this sir is supposed to limit the car to?

[nlevine]

4. BMW 318 (E36) (92-94), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
5. BMW 318ti & Club Sport (1995), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
6. BMW 318ti Sport (96-99), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.

Not to be a whiner, but why do all of the other M42/M44 powered BMWs go down to 2600 lbs, but the Z3 is still at 2675? I&#39;m hoping that this was an oversight - otherwise I&#39;m curious as to why the Z3 remains at its current somewhat portly weight..

-noam

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by xr4racer@Jan 20 2006, 09:45 PM
I think the question "has anyone tested the BMW SIR on the track yet?" deserves an answer. Disregard his other comment and please answer the question, I can take a wild guess at the answer. For people that are looking for a place to read a little about SIR&#39;s look at www.raetech.com.
I also have not seen any comments on how the ITS cars that lost all of the weight by these new rules will actually do it unless they hire Nicole Ritchie to drive for them or use remote controls.
Joe Harlan probably has built ITS Datsuns, how much can they legally get down to? I have a couple of friends that laughed when I told them the new weights of the 280z and 280zx that they run, and they said the ZX could probably lose 85 lbs and the 280z around 25 lbs.

71498

I think the 260 if you use the early bumpers and 190 lb driver could get close with light wheels

I have not looked hard at a 280 but I think the 280zx could get close and would be a great car. Please don&#39;t scoff to hard at this at least its an honest attempt to try.

[mlytle]

Originally posted by robits325is@Jan 21 2006, 02:43 AM
Did anyone install and test a SIR on an ITS BMW E-36 to see the results before implementing this rule change or is this another SCCA experiment to be funded by BMW drivers?

71485


sounds like the latter of the two...we all funded the scca experiment last year too. guess they are trying to run the bmw&#39;s out by killing our budgets. wonder what we will have to pay for next year? (those that are left....)

and where are the sir&#39;s for all the other cars in the class? if we are enforcing some magic formula for hp/wt, then why not make every car run an sir to keep the hp at the desired amount for each car?

or how about requiring all its drivers contribute to a fund to pay for the bmw restrictor costs.....it is effectively making everyone else&#39;s car faster, so they should pay for it!

[ITANorm]

Regardless of what you do, you&#39;ll get kudos and gripes. I used to figure if I got 50% of each on a new solution, I was about on target. :D

Thanks for all your help guys! Anybody on the ITAC - I owe you one (and you may collect at the Convention) - not just for the 100#, but for all the hard work you do.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 20 2006, 10:35 PM
sounds like the latter of the two...we all funded the scca experiment last year too. guess they are trying to run the bmw&#39;s out by killing our budgets. wonder what we will have to pay for next year? (those that are left....)

and where are the sir&#39;s for all the other cars in the class? if we are enforcing some magic formula for hp/wt, then why not make every car run an sir to keep the hp at the desired amount for each car?

or how about requiring all its drivers contribute to a fund to pay for the bmw restrictor costs.....it is effectively making everyone else&#39;s car faster, so they should pay for it!

71504



Now before this whine fest goes to far I am gonna tell you that others have spent tons of development money to try to keep up with a car that was clearly misclassed and exploited by to many wins by drivers with marginal talent and many track records by guys with exceptional talent. Don&#39;t be crying because your trophy harvesting days have come to a slow down. The E36 will still be the class of the field if it is driven as well and as hard as many of the guys that have put up with the misclassification of that car for all these years. I promise 350 bucks and a little hard work is not nearly the cost of the dyno time and header construction we have had to do over the years.

[xr4racer]

Joe, thanks for your reply, when I look at my friends cars again next week I will try to se how mch weight they can leglally lose. What gets me is the CRB&#39;s love of SIR&#39;s that have not been proven on the track or if they were I am not aware.
The GTL cars SIR size got changed to a 1mm lower size even before more than a few had installed them.
To answer the other question about why SIR&#39;s are not on all cars. It is not needed on the other cars because they can carry the weight that the process shows they should race at. For some reason the CRB chose SIR&#39;s over putting 300 or so lbs on the BMW&#39;s.
To me I can&#39;t understand why they reduce weight on slower cars and do not add weight to the faster cars. It is EXTREMELY expensive to reduce a cars weight and not too much to bolt in more weight.
As I stated earlier I have an 86 RX-7 and I would be one bolting in the weight.

Matt

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by xr4racer@Jan 20 2006, 11:10 PM
Joe, thanks for your reply, when I look at my friends cars again next week I will try to se how mch weight they can leglally lose. What gets me is the CRB&#39;s love of SIR&#39;s that have not been proven on the track or if they were I am not aware.
The GTL cars SIR size got changed to a 1mm lower size even before more than a few had installed them.
To answer the other question about why SIR&#39;s are not on all cars. It is not needed on the other cars because they can carry the weight that the process shows they should race at. For some reason the CRB chose SIR&#39;s over putting 300 or so lbs on the BMW&#39;s.
To me I can&#39;t understand why they reduce weight on slower cars and do not add weight to the faster cars. It is EXTREMELY expensive to reduce a cars weight and not too much to bolt in more weight.
As I stated earlier I have an 86 RX-7 and I would be one bolting in the weight.

Matt

71507

Matt, they are proven. they have been used in pro racing and in europe for years. I am not a big fan restricting anything but if it needs done this is the best way. The day a Z32 gets classed with one I will start construction on a new car. B)

[xr4racer]

I know these have been used in Pro racing and in Europe. I worked on getting the sealed airbox to not collapse in the 24 hrs of Daytona in the late 90&#39;s and early 2000&#39;s. They made us run a SIR on the SRP class cars, it did not go well even for the best of professional teams. They had nearly the same stall rule as the SCCA&#39;s 4 seconds. It was hard on the Lola B98 and Kudzu with a Chevy to get this to happen. The early attempts resulted in collapsed boxes or leaks. I just do not think this should be creeping into IT, why didn&#39;t they start in T1 with the $100,000 Vipers? The flat plate is good enough for T1 but not supposedly low budget IT cars??
I know this is allegedly an anomaly but I have heard that before and the precedent for their use in the future has occurred.

Matt

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 21 2006, 06:06 AM
Now before this whine fest goes to far I am gonna tell you that others have spent tons of development money to try to keep up with a car that was clearly misclassed and exploited by to many wins by drivers with marginal talent and many track records by guys with exceptional talent. Don&#39;t be crying because your trophy harvesting days have come to a slow down. The E36 will still be the class of the field if it is driven as well and as hard as many of the guys that have put up with the misclassification of that car for all these years. I promise 350 bucks and a little hard work is not nearly the cost of the dyno time and header construction we have had to do over the years.

71506


yeah, and all that development resulted in your cars being closer to the limit and FASTER by your choice. if you hadn&#39;t done that work already, then your cars weren&#39;t fully prepared. that ain&#39;t the bmw&#39;s fault. if you wanted to build to the limit, you had to do that work anyway. trying to compare that with scca experiments isn&#39;t even close to a valid argument. we have to do all the same work, to make the car slower. twice. after we invested time and effort to make the car faster in the first place. $350? yeah, right. that is only the basic piece. now add fabrication, other parts, more dyno time, etc.

this isn&#39;t about "crying about trophy harvesting days". spare me that bs whine. this is about repeated changes by scca causing yearly rework to the same cars. i just want to go race and have fun. having to shell out $1000 and a bunch of labor every winter just be legal and slower ain&#39;t very fun.

if for some reason a car was "misclassed" ahead of current its cars (including the bmw), i could still go race and have fun and there wouldn&#39;t be any forced cost to it. this is now the second year in a row of a significant mandated cost before bmw&#39;s can race legally in its.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 21 2006, 01:09 AM
yeah, and all that development resulted in your cars being closer to the limit and FASTER by your choice. if you hadn&#39;t done that work already, then your cars weren&#39;t fully prepared. that ain&#39;t the bmw&#39;s fault. if you wanted to build to the limit, you had to do that work anyway. trying to compare that with scca experiments isn&#39;t even close to a valid argument. we have to do all the same work, to make the car slower. twice. after we invested time and effort to make the car faster in the first place. $350? yeah, right. that is only the basic piece. now add fabrication, other parts, more dyno time, etc.

this isn&#39;t about "crying about trophy harvesting days". spare me that bs whine. this is about repeated changes by scca causing yearly rework to the same cars. i just want to go race and have fun. having to shell out $1000 and a bunch of labor every winter just be legal and slower ain&#39;t very fun.

if for some reason a car was "misclassed" ahead of current its cars (including the bmw), i could still go race and have fun and there wouldn&#39;t be any forced cost to it. this is now the second year in a row of a significant mandated cost before bmw&#39;s can race legally in its.

71511


As much as the above sounds like a whine-fest, I have to agree, to a point. They should have just thrown 250 - 300 # at the car and been done with it.

I&#39;m not really a fan of writing rules for one category, that are based on the rules of another other category. For a good example of how this doesn&#39;t work, look at the early limited-prep Prod rules. They made reference to IT head prep. Well, if you look at the &#39;06 PCS, I&#39;m pretty sure all those old IT references are gone.

[JLawton]

:023: :happy204:

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 21 2006, 12:09 AM
yeah, and all that development resulted in your cars being closer to the limit and FASTER by your choice. if you hadn&#39;t done that work already, then your cars weren&#39;t fully prepared. that ain&#39;t the bmw&#39;s fault. if you wanted to build to the limit, you had to do that work anyway. trying to compare that with scca experiments isn&#39;t even close to a valid argument. we have to do all the same work, to make the car slower. twice. after we invested time and effort to make the car faster in the first place. $350? yeah, right. that is only the basic piece. now add fabrication, other parts, more dyno time, etc.

this isn&#39;t about "crying about trophy harvesting days". spare me that bs whine. this is about repeated changes by scca causing yearly rework to the same cars. i just want to go race and have fun. having to shell out $1000 and a bunch of labor every winter just be legal and slower ain&#39;t very fun.

if for some reason a car was "misclassed" ahead of current its cars (including the bmw), i could still go race and have fun and there wouldn&#39;t be any forced cost to it. this is now the second year in a row of a significant mandated cost before bmw&#39;s can race legally in its.

71511

No you miss the point, Even continuing to try yo make more power and better handling there was nothing left. My point is we didn&#39;t quit trying even though a half an effort was able to beat us. And to answer your question , no a flat plat is not as good as an engineered SIR. With the SIR the car will stay very driveable up to the point that the HP get knocked of the top.
Lastly the classification of a pure overdog did more damage to ITS over the years than any other poorly written rule in the GCR. This is an effort to bring some credibility back to the class that I applaud.


Matt as far as the SAB goes it&#39;s it&#39;s another big excuse for not wanting change. I can see some of the issues with the GT cars but we don&#39;t have the same issue here. In the case we have a single inlet intake manifold and a car that is already running a 3" intake pipe past the MAF.

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 20 2006, 11:08 AM
We gave the CRB both options, they went with the SIR.

The outside performance envelope is dictated primarily by the stock/IT-prep hp of a car. Anything that is 200+ stock hp is pretty much outside the envelope. You COULD place anything in IT with a SIR but...

This car and situation is an anomoly...treat it as such.

AB

71427


Does this mean there&#39;s a chance of classing the 2.8l Z3 in ITS?? Stock it&#39;s at 189 hp?? Maybe I should finish that classification form and send it in.

James

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 21 2006, 02:09 AM
........
this isn&#39;t about "crying about trophy harvesting days". spare me that bs whine. this is about repeated changes by scca causing yearly rework to the same cars. i just want to go race and have fun. ......


71511



Ok, then what would YOU want done? Keep in mind an entire class can spend as many buckets of money they want, but still come up short...not very fun for them.

So, SIR??? Or a smaller flat plate restrictor?
Or more weight? Lots of it?

I think you guys have been given a gift...a device that while requireing implementation, won&#39;t hurt your torque, your cornering speeds, your brakes or your raceability....

It is an attempt to level a field that everyone can see is lopsided.

There have been FAR more inequities over the years in IT...tha addition of new cars to classes at overly low weights have cost hundreds of guys THOUSANDs of dollars in marginalized value in both their racing experience, and their cars value.

You are not the first guy that has had to cross this bridge, and considerable thought and consideration was given to what would be the easiest (for you) and most effective way to handle your situation.

I&#39;m sorry that you have been lucky enough to race an obvious overdog, (for years) and have had to endure several attempts to make things fair for all.

(You have no idea how many guys there are out ther right now thinking..."I wish I had their problems!!")

[BMW RACER]

Let me get this straight. Stock E36 throttle body is approx 64mm in diameter. 2005 SCCA says "Too fast, gotta cut it down to 56mm" Now a year later they say "Still too fast, let&#39;s make that 27mm"

They must be getting better dope in Topeka than Denver!

Maybe I&#39;m the one on dope? (I&#39;m sure you all will let me know)

27mm (1 1/16") is less than half the size of last years restrictor.

So now I must take my restricted E36 and drive around at half throttle! Oh yea and sort it out by February.

I really don&#39;t want to sound like a whiner, but doesn&#39;t sound a little extreem?

PLEASE CONVINCE ME IT&#39;S WORTH EVEN SPENDING THE TIME AND MONEY ON THIS.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by xr4racer@Jan 20 2006, 11:45 PM
I also have not seen any comments on how the ITS cars that lost all of the weight by these new rules will actually do it unless they hire Nicole Ritchie to drive for them or use remote controls.

71498



A general response to this:

The weight reductions aren&#39;t only in ITS, and yes, it is known that the allowable weights may be impossible to acheive on certain cars.

But they were listed at those weights anyway, as to allow the industrious racer who really wants to race that particular car to get as close as he can should he desire to do the work, and there is also the additional side benefit of making the average race weekend easier by removing the constant worry that the car could cross the scales too light.

The hope is that it won&#39;t encourage cheating. And I&#39;m sure it won&#39;t as cheaters don&#39;t need encouragement, they do what they want regardless.

My car was given 100 pounds and it&#39;s not the gift I would really want either...it&#39;s hard to find 100 pounds on the car, and the weight I know that can come off, is all where I need weight to balance it.! Oh well, beggers can&#39;t be choosers and all that.

Better than nothing...

Also, the slower cars will advancen by the gains afforded them, but the faster cars should back up a touch....so the closing of the ranks is better than it first appears.

Again, it&#39;s not perfect, but it should result in more makes having a chance.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by BMW RACER@Jan 21 2006, 02:57 PM
Let me get this straight. Stock E36 throttle body is approx 64mm in diameter. 2005 SCCA says "Too fast, gotta cut it down to 56mm" Now a year later they say "Still too fast, let&#39;s make that 27mm"

They must be getting better dope in Topeka than Denver!

Maybe I&#39;m the one on dope? (I&#39;m sure you all will let me know)

27mm (1 1/16") is less than half the size of last years restrictor.

So now I must take my restricted E36 and drive around at half throttle! Oh yea and sort it out by February.

I really don&#39;t want to sound like a whiner, but doesn&#39;t sound a little extreem?

PLEASE CONVINCE ME IT&#39;S WORTH EVEN SPENDING THE TIME AND MONEY ON THIS.

71532


John...
An SIR isn&#39;t at all like the flat plate restrictors you are currently using. Your current restrictor will be removed.

The research and math has sized the restrictor to meet the target of ITS.

The SIR design is an optimized flow device. You may have seen them on the ALMP lite cars, as little funnel like things in the bodywork.

The science behind the design is that it won&#39;t affect the car except at the high end of the HP curve, when it merely lopes off the top.

The goal here is that some BMW guys will not have any idea it is on the engine. Others will lose 5 or 10 hp at the top. Guys who have decided to run M3 cams or whatever (rumours abound from within the BMW camp that the fast examples are doing this) will see their efforts negated.

I know the numbers sound awful, but you can&#39;t compare the two devices. Apples to grapes....

It sounds way more radical than it is.

[Doc Bro]

The bottom line is EVERYBODY knew it was coming. Any e36 team that couldn&#39;t see it coming was asleep at the wheel. The 350+ bucks is rough so is having it happen in the end of January- but what did we expect?

I think given the choice the weight savings and SIR was very fair. The SIR will pay for itself in time. Who wants a 3100lbs e36? And why are fully developed e36 teams complaining about $$$ anyway? It&#39;s not a cheap marque!!!

The SIR just saved a lot of new/underdeveloped teams an awful lot of heartache.
I&#39;d much rather have a light underdeveloped car with an SIR in place that wouldn&#39;t do a thing anyway, rather than have an extra 300lbs always present and the same underdeveloped engine program. Remember not everyone starts with a 10/10 effort.

There were only two options....things were going to change it was inevitable.

Weight is cheap and easy initially- I agree........but just clipping off the high end hp seems like a more attractive option to me.

I&#39;m surprised it wasn&#39;t weight as that seems to be more in line with the IT philosophy however I think the SIR shows some forward thinking on the part of those involved.

R

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Jan 21 2006, 01:19 PM
John...
An SIR isn&#39;t at all like the flat plate restrictors you are currently using. Your current restrictor will be removed.

The research and math has sized the restrictor to meet the target of ITS.

The SIR design is an optimized flow device. You may have seen them on the ALMP lite cars, as little funnel like things in the bodywork.

The science behind the design is that it won&#39;t affect the car except at the high end of the HP curve, when it merely lopes off the top.

The goal here is that some BMW guys will not have any idea it is on the engine. Others will lose 5 or 10 hp at the top. Guys who have decided to run M3 cams or whatever (rumours abound from within the BMW camp that the fast examples are doing this) will see their efforts negated.

I know the numbers sound awful, but you can&#39;t compare the two devices. Apples to grapes....

It sounds way more radical than it is.

71534



John, serious go get some data off the net before you step off the ledge. This is the best way to handle this and it will be the easiest fix for you.
If I were putting one on it would be a raetech engineering unit. I own no part of the company and don&#39;t have stock in these units.

[BMW RACER]

Jake & Joe.

Thanks for your patience and responces.

I knew I must have been missing something, I guess I was in shock!

Still, I&#39;ve got to wonder, did they ever test this? Why do they decide now instead of the end of last season? I&#39;m only a month away from the next race.

Thanks also for the Raetech link.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by BMW RACER@Jan 21 2006, 03:52 PM
Jake & Joe.

Thanks for your patience and responces.

I knew I must have been missing something, I guess I was in shock!

Still, I&#39;ve got to wonder, did they ever test this? Why do they decide now instead of the end of last season? I&#39;m only a month away from the next race.

Thanks also for the Raetech link.

71545

Its still likely when I come to visit that you will still kick my butt...

[xr4racer]

Jake, the 100 lbs may be doable on your car but wouldn&#39;t you rather have had 50 more added to the CRX Si and you only lose 50? That is my point with the Datsun 280z and 280zx they can lose 225lbs and 240 lbs respectively. I think it would have made more sense to add 100 or so to the BMW (with the SIR), RX-7, Quad 4 cars,etc and had them only try to lose 125 and 140, which might be possible ( but I doubt it).
As for your car my friends GSL-SE weighed 2205 without fluids and driver when he built it so you may have a chance with a 12A car to reach your weight.
I want to thank everyone, who I am sure worked on this whole project for many hours, for making the IT group a more level playing field. This is by far the most radical change in IT history. It is one I thought that would never come and they could just put on my tombstone either "not allowed because of rules creep" or "car is competitive as classified".

Matt

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by BMW RACER@Jan 21 2006, 05:52 PM
Jake & Joe.

.... Why do they decide now instead of the end of last season? I&#39;m only a month away from the next race.


71545


John, you&#39;re welcome. Coming from you, I knew there was a disconnect. Your rep is pretty solid, and I know you&#39;re not an unreasonable guy.

Yeah, the timing sucks, and I&#39;m sure it sucks to have to do anything, LOL. But it&#39;s obviously done for the good of the class, as well as the category as a whole.

Timing on this was two-fold. Most of the main work was done over the summer, with the final list ready in late summer. Some loose ends were tightened up over the fall, (the E36 being one of them)and the whole package needed to be discussed and approved by the CRB, and the BoD, then it needed to be published. I agree, that it took too long, but I have to tell you, it was a major fear of the ITAC that it wouln&#39;t make it out for this year at all, as the CRB and the BoD has a lot of things they need to attend to.

The mere fact that it is now reality signals that the major sea change is truly here.... the ship has actually changed it&#39;s course. We hope to retain the best elements of the old course, while piloting to a brighter future.

I am pleased that it has been approved, and I think that IT racing will be better now than perhaps ever.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by xr4racer@Jan 21 2006, 07:28 PM
Jake, the 100 lbs may be doable on your car but wouldn&#39;t you rather have had 50 more added to the CRX Si and you only lose 50? ......
Matt

71548


Sure! Who wouldn&#39;t!? But If the CRX got an additional 50, then so would every other car near it, like the 240SX, the Teg, as well as others that are currently "status quo", such as the Neons, the NX2000, and so on.

Thats a lot of cars, LOL. And there is the bigger picture to consider. We needed to use the 4 classes available to us as effectively as possible, but still not disturb the existing subscribers. (So no eliminating ITC, for example, to make room above ITS). Each classes performance envelope needs to make sense within the overall context.

In the end, the lines were drawn in an attempt to help the most, and force the least anguish.

Armchair quarterbacks will find better ways perhaps, but hopefully this will help the most while hurting the least. We&#39;ll deal with errors and omissions as part of the normal business should they arise.

[theenico]

First, I want to thank all those that worked hard on this. :happy204:

Second... Has anyone seen my old Scirocco :(

Edit: See below :blink:

[Drew Aldred]

Nico,

Yes, I know where that car is. I sold it to Steve Nagle last season when trying to finish it was taking longer than I expected. (My fault, not the car&#39;s) It&#39;s painted up real pretty now, black with blue striping. He is not racing it, but he&#39;s holding it for his crew chief to race. I can find out the for sale status if you&#39;re interested. Motor&#39;s done, with new head and cam. Dash is out, etc so it&#39;s alot closer to being ready for Prod than IT.

Race cars never die, they just get different owners. B)

See ya at the Runoffs this year ????

[theenico]

Originally posted by Drew Aldred@Jan 21 2006, 10:14 PM
Nico,

Yes, I know where that car is. I sold it to Steve Nagle last season when trying to finish it was taking longer than I expected. (My fault, not the car&#39;s) It&#39;s painted up real pretty now, black with blue striping. He is not racing it, but he&#39;s holding it for his crew chief to race. I can find out the for sale status if you&#39;re interested. Motor&#39;s done, with new head and cam. Dash is out, etc so it&#39;s alot closer to being ready for Prod than IT.

Race cars never die, they just get different owners. B)

See ya at the Runoffs this year ????

71557


Hi Drew,

Don&#39;t worry about it. If they have gone to the trouble of finishing it for G-prod then I will just have to find another one. Oh well, you never know what the future holds :) .

I may actually make it to the runoffs this year since it will be in Kansas :happy204: .

[snk328is]

Assuming that the top BMW runners have a lot of money to throw at their race cars, I can only imagine that they will work very hard to engineer an SIR that will lose as little HP as can be possibly lost.

So if the BMW&#39;s keep winning, what will happen next year? Will the intake restriction become smaller? Will weight be introduced at that point?

My racing budget for one weekend is less than $500. Buying an SIR and tuning (or buying a chip "upgrade") will force me to skip a race weekend. I raced three weekends last year and was planning on racing three times again this year.

I race a BMW but I am a budget racer in the true sense. (I drove my race car to all three races I participated in last year.) My annual tire budget is $600 (a set of Toyo RA-1&#39;s).

This new requirement hurts, to be honest, and I don&#39;t know that I want to spend the money for an SIR if I don&#39;t know that I have to spend the same money again for 2007. I spent about $130 last year on the required restrictor plate and the optional spacer and that wasn&#39;t too bad, but now it&#39;s useless. I guess I will have a nice paper weight though.

BMW CCA is requiring a H&N restraint beginning April 1 so I was faced with skipping one race weekend as it was already to finance the purchase of one (although I will admit that I would have waited to race until later in the season to see if ISAAC comes out with an SFI38.1 version of theirs). Will SCCA also require a H&N restraint next year?

I&#39;m probably the exception and not the norm. Nevertheless, there&#39;s a good chance that SOWDIV will see one less ITS E36 racing this year. I think I&#39;ll take the money I saved and put it toward buying a kart. Afterall, a kart will probably fit in the back of my &#39;98 K2500 Suburban that I just bought last month to begin towing my race car with...

[dickita15]

Originally posted by snk328is+Jan 22 2006, 12:32 AM-->
So if the BMW&#39;s keep winning, what will happen next year? Will the intake restriction become smaller? Will weight be introduced at that point?

71573
[/b]
we have been told that on track performance is not how changes are determined, if anything how a car does on track could only signal the ITAC to run the numbers on the car.

<!--QuoteBegin-snk328is@Jan 22 2006, 12:32 AM
I race a BMW but I am a budget racer in the true sense. (I drove my race car to all three races I participated in last year.)

71573


yes the bad news is this will cost you money. the good news is that your car with it&#39;s limited engine development will most likely not go any slower with the sir. you should be closer to the big horsepower BMWs. if weight adjustment had been used it would have hurt you performance plus cost you more over the season in tires, brakes ect.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by dickita15@Jan 22 2006, 07:17 AM
... you should be closer to the big horsepower BMWs. if weight adjustment had been used it would have hurt you performance plus cost you more over the season in tires, brakes ect.
Interesting point, Dickita (cha, cha, cha).

I hadn&#39;t thought of it that way but I&#39;m still dubious about the SIR answer. I think we are underestimating the cost of the parts necessary to make it happen, even if not everyone opts to push the limit and completely re-tune to optimize to the new system. I&#39;m curious too, what this will look like in terms of tech inspection.

I remember when SIRs were first introduced to US sportscars, that even the "pro" teams had trouble with collapsing airboxes and such.

I have absolutely NO real evidence to support this but my sense is that the SIR choice was made because 325 owners squawked so loudly about how dangerous, scary, etc. their cars would be with 300# of lead: "Fine - have it your way. We&#39;ll do it without lead, so you can&#39;t use that defense."

Is this a case of, "be careful what you wish for?"

K

[dickita15]

I admit you are right Kirk. Not many on this board have much first hand knowledge about SIRs.

I think that the IT use of these will be a little easier that the prototype cars as we have a single point of air intake.

your point about getting what they asked for is well founded.

[924Guy]

I&#39;m a little late to the party, but wanted to just add my vote of thanks to the ITAC and CRB for the major effort to make sure IT continues to be a good place to race! I&#39;m one of those indirectly hurt by the changes, but I never wanted to race in a 1-car class! If I did, I&#39;d be racing in PCA...

[mlytle]

i&#39;ll ask again. what is the target hp this sir is supposed to limit to?

and why, if it is such a great way to limit internal engine cheating, wasn&#39;t it required on ALL its cars? that is what i had "asked for" in numerous previous threads. even for all and might have shared some of the experimentation costs.

and it ain&#39;t gonna be "only $350" to implement.

at least in gtl, they gave folks some notice on when it would be implemented.

[dj10]

Originally posted by snk328is@Jan 21 2006, 11:32 PM
So if the BMW&#39;s keep winning, what will happen next year?

71573


I guess you&#39;ll just have to SHOOT any GOOD BMW driver that might have a fast car! :D
dj

[xr4racer]

Having a SIR required on all ITS cars that have no chance in hell at making BMW power is the dumbest solution yet. It would be a decoration riding around on all ITS cars that would be doing absolutely nothing to any car making less than target HP. Even in GTL they realized putting the SIR on ex GT5 motors was an incredibly dumb idea. Example for ITS lets put a SIR on a 165 HP Mazda so it can not make over 225 HP.

Matt

[Campbell]

I too want to thank the CRB and ITAC. Even further I have a lot to thank the SCCA for.. since I run an ITB Scirocco I now have a lot of weight to lose. What is special about that? well not only have I met a lot of great people in the SCCA, if it weren&#39;t for the medical physical required every 2 years I would never, never go the doctor. Now to get to minimum weight I will have to lose this extra 30 lbs I have been carrying around - would I do it for my health? for my wife? so my clothes would fit? nope. Will I get fit to get those couple tenths? you betcha!! I am such a better person because of the SCCA!!! thanks again!

[67ITB]

A GIANT THANK YOU to all of you that put in a HUGE effort to make this happen.

So let’s see…..
In looking at the car I think I can easily find 60-70 lbs on the car to remove and then I will have to loose the 30(+) lbs I have put on since I got home last year.

Thanks again for the weight adjustment and for giving me a reason to get off my FAT rear and get back to the gym.

Matt Bal

[turboICE]

For those concerned about making it down to their new weight - why not ask that polycarbonate be allowed for glass replacement in IT?

[mlytle]

Originally posted by xr4racer@Jan 22 2006, 04:42 PM
Having a SIR required on all ITS cars that have no chance in hell at making BMW power is the dumbest solution yet. It would be a decoration riding around on all ITS cars that would be doing absolutely nothing to any car making less than target HP. Even in GTL they realized putting the SIR on ex GT5 motors was an incredibly dumb idea. Example for ITS lets put a SIR on a 165 HP Mazda so it can not make over 225 HP.

Matt

71588

now that post isn&#39;t very well thought out. the point is not to limit to the bmw power. the point of everyone running an sir is to limit every cars hp to whatever the magic formula horsepower number is FOR THAT PARTICULAR CAR. the cars all weight different, so the sir size would be different to force ALL cars to stay within their hp "box". it would not be a decoration riding around on non-bmw cars. any car can cheat, this puts a cap on the effect cheating will have.

[ed325its]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 23 2006, 02:02 AM
now that post isn&#39;t very well thought out. the point is not to limit to the bmw power. the point of everyone running an sir is to limit every cars hp to whatever the magic formula horsepower number is FOR THAT PARTICULAR CAR. the cars all weight different, so the sir size would be different to force ALL cars to stay within their hp "box". it would not be a decoration riding around on non-bmw cars. any car can cheat, this puts a cap on the effect cheating will have.

71622

Very well stated, especially considering the revelations in this thread that the SIR is needed because the BMW&#39;s are cheating by using M3 cams and some undeserving BMW racer won somewhere.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by ed325its@Jan 22 2006, 09:14 PM
Very well stated,especially considering the relevations in this thread that the SIR is needed because the BMW&#39;s are cheating by using M3 cams and some undeserving BMW racer won somewhere.

71623


Simply not true. Some BMW&#39;s may be cheating but I suspect no more than any other make.

The BMW&#39;s can make too much HP in legal IT prep for a 2850lb minimum weight. Simple as that. Limit it to about 220hp (crank) and you &#39;fit&#39; into ITS.

Pick your poison, you can weigh what you should given your HP potential, or keep your weight and limit your HP.

AB

[Bill Miller]

The weight reductions aren&#39;t only in ITS, and yes, it is known that the allowable weights may be impossible to acheive on certain cars.


Jake,

Wasn&#39;t this the reason that the New Beetle was put in ITC and not ITB, because it was felt that it couldn&#39;t make weight? I&#39;m sorry, but if you set a weight that a car can&#39;t make (at least get w/in 50# of), then it should probably be dropped a class.

As far as the SIR for the BMWs, the more I think about it, the more I think it was the wrong choice, and the more I think the BMW guys got another gimme. It&#39;s been stated by many on this board (some ITAC members, IIRC), that since the peak hp will be limited by the SIR, there&#39;s nothing to be gained by squeezing extra hp out of the motor, through development. That&#39;s created a case where you can potentially have <10/10ths efforts running up front, beating the guys that have tweaked their cars for all their worth, just to run at the front.

And it&#39;s funny to hear the BMW guys squak about it. Like I said, they should have just thrown the 250 - 300 lbs of lead at them, and been done with it. And back to the &#39;one category&#39;s rules being linked to another category&#39;s rules&#39; deal. What happens if (when?) the GT rule changes?

[ed325its]

Funny, I haven&#39;t heard any BMW guys squack about the rule; only ask questions which get summarily dismissed and dissed.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by ed325its@Jan 22 2006, 08:36 PM
Funny, I haven&#39;t heard any BMW guys squack about the rule; only ask questions which get summarily dismissed and dissed.

71635



Ed, I think several people have tried to offer information about the SIR and how it will work. I don&#39;t believe it has just been dismissed. You all have known some fix was coming so don&#39;t act shocked that it finally happened.

Bill, I am almost positive that the rules for the SIR will eventually have to be moved to the GCR. SIR&#39;s will be the furture I believe that and I think you will see more and more classes using them in the future.

Ed, I don&#39;t recall one single post saying this was a change to address cheating. If it were I would be against it. If there is a problem with cheating then a checkbook and a protest is the way to deal with that. AN E36 with an SIR and M3 cams would still be cheating and I would still be willing to pull it apart to prove it. The deal is your cars were misclassed and then got a rule change that benefited them more than any other model out there (ecu rules) your HP and torque numbers are well outside the window for ITS in a completely legal configuration and that&#39;s where the need for adjustment comes from.

[lateapex911]

I wasn&#39;t quoted, but I am sure it was my comments about illegal E36s that have been referred to. let me restate, or clarify.

The reason the SIR was chosen was NOT to keep cheating BMWs in check.

I referenced the M3 cams in my comments about the issue with nailing down the E36 hp. In discussions here, E36 guys have often cried foul, that the ITAC was getting bogus numbers on the car...that those numbers couldn&#39;t be reached legally.

The SIR renders that discussion moot.

Again, the decision to add the SIR wasn&#39;t based on one car, illegal or not, winning one race somewhere. It&#39;s a pure numbers deal.

And the goal, Bill, wasn&#39;t to make winners out of less than 100% prepped cars, but to solve a togh situation in a class and make it better for everyone.

If I was an ITS guy who didn&#39;t own an E36, I would be really thankful that the E36 was now "reachable", regardless of what they have to do, or spend, to run at the front.

Hopefully, drivers will now decide wins, not cars.

[ed325its]

Joe,

What about my statements makes you believe I am shocked by the change? The truth is I am not shocked by any actions in regard to the BMW&#39;s.

Please review Mr. Bettencourt&#39;s posts in this thread. He was very clear that the benefits of the SIR would protect the IT community from cheating. So, the questions asked by others are still valid, been left unanswered,and dismissed. Have the results of the SIR been tested? Why not apply SIR&#39;s to all cars? What is the target HP/weight for each class?

I&#39;ll add two more, why is the RX7 the annointed class of the field? Why are the formula and class parameters not open to public debate? (I know, I have been told repeated that the formula has been disclosed, but just repeating the mantra doesn&#39;t make it true. There is a big difference between disclosing a philosphy and a repeatable, by anyone, formula.)

I have and will readily admit that the E36 is fast. I would not have parked my podium finishing E30 and built an E36 otherwise. But the overdog to the E30 was not only the E36 but also the RX7. In my opinion the RX7 should also have been rained back to what was a varied and competitive field.

Do whatever you want with the E36. Ban it if you wish. Send it and the RX7 to another class. I&#39;ll just get out the E30 again. The E30 may have less power but it corners and brakes better than the E36.

[bimmerpower]

The SIR is just another blow.

Its been nice, but time to move on. Still not convinced that there was this overdog. Up here in the midwest, it was the RX7 taking the championship over top prepared e36...

This is one BMW ITS racer that is moving on. Maybe I&#39;ll regret it at the end of the year, but its time to try another venue. I&#39;ll re-evaluate next winter and see how things have shaken out. Tired of being the expiriment.

Wade

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by bimmerpower@Jan 22 2006, 11:33 PM
The SIR is just another blow.

Its been nice, but time to move on. Still not convinced that there was this overdog. Up here in the midwest, it was the RX7 taking the championship over top prepared e36...

This is one BMW ITS racer that is moving on. Maybe I&#39;ll regret it at the end of the year, but its time to try another venue. I&#39;ll re-evaluate next winter and see how things have shaken out. Tired of being the expiriment.

Wade

71644


That&#39;s too bad Wade

A couple questions for you.

Where will you go?
How do you know what the SIR will do to you?
If you were spending the same money, but your car was going to be faster, would you balk at the expense?
Have you determined the sources and prices for the installation?
What level of prep is your car?

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by dickita15@Jan 22 2006, 09:59 AM
I admit you are right Kirk. Not many on this board have much first hand knowledge about SIRs.

I think that the IT use of these will be a little easier that the prototype cars as we have a single point of air intake.

your point about getting what they asked for is well founded.

71580


Interestingly, the ITAC has gotten many letters about the E36 and that included letters requesting the use of further restriction, as opposed to weight additions.

Then there were letters that denied any problem, and some that said that other cars in S should get weight, but the E36 should be left alone, or have the existing restrictor removed.

Hopefully, we will be posting more SIR info in the very near future.

[bimmerpower]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Jan 23 2006, 05:14 AM
That&#39;s too bad Wade

A couple questions for you.

Where will you go?
How do you know what the SIR will do to you?
If you were spending the same money, but your car was going to be faster, would you balk at the expense?
Have you determined the sources and prices for the installation?
What level of prep is your car?

71646


Well, at this point, I am 95% sure I am going to run the USTCC this year. Won&#39;t cost much more to run a pro series than what i spend on ITS today. I honestly don&#39;t know what the SIR will do, or how it will impact me. It&#39;s really not all about the $$. Theres a lot of re-doing the same development now 3 years in a row (initial build, restrictor, sir )... for an amatuer club racing series its a bit over the top. I have more time, $$ and development into my car than many pro cars have. The car certainly seems to have a big target on it. Not sure some will be happy till its gone, or finishing mid pack.

I just feel my time and $$ would be better spent in another series right now. Like I said, I may be wrong. I do know that the continuing "overdog" bashing is wearing on many BMW drivers. The couple I was close with were on the fence as it was last year with the restrictor... this will most likely put them over the edge to another series. There are lots of other options out there. ...

Good luck with all the changes. I truly do hope it works out better than it seems on paper to me.

Wade

[buldogge]

Three Things:

1) I prefer the SIR to the weight gain ASSUMING it works as stated/promised. There seems to be some question of this in review of various GT discussions...

2) Am I right in reading that the SIR functions with the stock intake manifold PURELY in-line with the intake tract ahead of the TB...without any sort of sealed airbox/etc. (as Joe Harlan alluded to)?
That is, it is simply an addition to the intake tube...ahead of? or after?...the HFM??

3) Simple value answer...What is the target RWHP # for ITS (or in this case for the E36)? No BS...simple number...simple answer.

TIA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by ed325its@Jan 22 2006, 11:20 PM

Please review Mr. Bettencourt&#39;s posts in this thread. He was very clear that the benefits of the SIR would protect the IT community from cheating.

71642


Ed,

I mentioned cheating as it oertained to a generic restrictor plate. They can be defeated if you don&#39;t mandate the design. You made the comment that the issue with all the fuss about the BMW&#39;s were due to one or two cheater cars winning races. I would think that limiting the crank HP would put that idea to bed.

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by buldogge@Jan 22 2006, 11:31 PM
Three Things:

1) I prefer the SIR to the weight gain ASSUMING it works as stated/promised. There seems to be some question of this in review of various GT discussions...

2) Am I right in reading that the SIR functions with the stock intake manifold PURELY in-line with the intake tract ahead of the TB...without any sort of sealed airbox/etc. (as Joe Harlan alluded to)?
That is, it is simply an addition to the intake tube...ahead of? or after?...the HFM??

3) Simple value answer...What is the target RWHP # for ITS (or in this case for the E36)? No BS...simple number...simple answer.

TIA

71651



Most of the folks in are struggle with the airbox because of individual runner intakes. There are planty of good boxes out there on the market but there seams to be the better mouse trap problem. I personally would install the SIR ahead of the MAF so the MAF sees when the air stream goes sonic. I believe the MAF will help compensate to a small degree which should hekp make the most post that can be had as the air stalls. I want to see these cars still be able to extract the maximum power up to the limits of the SIR. We don&#39;t need to drive them away and I don&#39;t believe there was ever any though of that. I believe that for every one car that gives up we will gain one and eventually get that car back once the system is shown to work.

As far as the SIR goes, I would bet that the fuel map changes are not going to be greatly different than what most folks have today.

[Bill Miller]

And the goal, Bill, wasn&#39;t to make winners out of less than 100% prepped cars, but to solve a togh situation in a class and make it better for everyone.

If I was an ITS guy who didn&#39;t own an E36, I would be really thankful that the E36 was now "reachable", regardless of what they have to do, or spend, to run at the front

Jake,

I never said it was the goal, and I certainly didn&#39;t mean to imply it. What I said, was that it was a potential result of the SIR rule. We&#39;ve discussed SIRs on this board, and several comments were made about guys w/ less than full-tilt BMW programs not having to spend the huge time/dollars to be able to stay w/ the folks that did have the full-tilt cars.

Here&#39;s a quote from Joe:


The E36 will still be the class of the field if it is driven as well and as hard as many of the guys that have put up with the misclassification of that car for all these years.

If that&#39;s really the case, now you&#39;ve got a car that doesn&#39;t have to be developed to 10/10ths, that&#39;s going to run at the front. As I said, seems like the BMW guys got a gimme.

With the Supra @ 3380#, w/ only 11 more stock hp, and only slightly bigger brakes (299/290 vw 287/280), using the "it&#39;ll be too heavy @ 3150#" arguement just doesn&#39;t fly. You have to wonder if the CBR didn&#39;t select the SIR over the weight, as a way to validate the SIR concept.

I don&#39;t really see SIRs being consistent w/ IT philosophy. Do they fit in GT? Probably. But there you have a National class, that encourages factory support and involvement. Not to mention that you&#39;re dealing w/ highly developed, purpose-built race cars. That&#39;s not to say that IT cars aren&#39;t race cars, but you can&#39;t compare the two. Sure, a Miata and a 911 are both sports cars, but they&#39;re hardly in the same league.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 23 2006, 06:51 AM
Jake,

I never said it was the goal, and I certainly didn&#39;t mean to imply it. What I said, was that it was a potential result of the SIR rule. We&#39;ve discussed SIRs on this board, and several comments were made about guys w/ less than full-tilt BMW programs not having to spend the huge time/dollars to be able to stay w/ the folks that did have the full-tilt cars.

Here&#39;s a quote from Joe:
If that&#39;s really the case, now you&#39;ve got a car that doesn&#39;t have to be developed to 10/10ths, that&#39;s going to run at the front. As I said, seems like the BMW guys got a gimme.

With the Supra @ 3380#, w/ only 11 more stock hp, and only slightly bigger brakes (299/290 vw 287/280), using the "it&#39;ll be too heavy @ 3150#" arguement just doesn&#39;t fly. You have to wonder if the CBR didn&#39;t select the SIR over the weight, as a way to validate the SIR concept.

I don&#39;t really see SIRs being consistent w/ IT philosophy. Do they fit in GT? Probably. But there you have a National class, that encourages factory support and involvement. Not to mention that you&#39;re dealing w/ highly developed, purpose-built race cars. That&#39;s not to say that IT cars aren&#39;t race cars, but you can&#39;t compare the two. Sure, a Miata and a 911 are both sports cars, but they&#39;re hardly in the same league.

71667

Bil, it&#39;s funny any time I post something I have this voice in the back of my head saying "how will bill misuse my words today"

Class of the field would still require a fully developed and fully driven car to be at the pointy end of the grid. It should require no less than that to win. Forget the SIR. If the MAF was 27MM they would have to develop their car to the max to get the same result. I understand your hesitation but this is the best technoloy going to make these kinds of changes. My honest feeling is that SIR&#39;s will end up in all classes and they should. You could then use SIR to limit HP and small amounts of weight to control torque advantages. Again I am not saying IT should get continuous adjustments

BTW, I have not even seen a supra racing to this day. Doesn&#39;t mean there isn&#39;t one just I have not seen it. I believe that 2.5 liter BMW VS 3.0 liter toyota maybe where the weight difference comes from. I am positive that the Toyota was way more restricted from the factory and the IT mods would show a serious power increase. That being said I also think with an SIR and 2900 lbs you may actually see several of them built cause the cars are out there and they are fairly cheap these days.

[Bill Miller]

Joe,

I&#39;m certainly not trying to &#39;misuse&#39; [sic] your words. I simply quoted what you said. And if the hp is capped by the SIR, how can you say that the car will need to be &#39;fully developed&#39;? If the target cutoff point for the SIR is 220 chp (I think that&#39;s what Andy or Jake said), and the potential for the motor is 235-240 chp, w/ all the max tweaks, why would you need to spend the money and time, to get those 15-20 hp out of the motor, if they&#39;re never going to get used? Is it because the torque curve will keep increasing, even though the hp flattens out? I admit that I don&#39;t know a whole lot about SIR technology, but I didn&#39;t think that was the case.

I think the reason that you don&#39;t see any 3rd gen. Supras out there, is because they&#39;re saddled w/ a 3380# spec weight. Is there more to be gotten from a 7M-GE in IT prep, than the 2.5 I-6 from the E36? I don&#39;t know. Maybe, but then again, maybe not. You&#39;re talking about 11:1 for the E36 mill compared to 9.7 for the Toyota. I don&#39;t know much about those cars, other than the fact that the turbo versions are REALLY popular w/ the drag crowd and the tuner crowd. I do think it&#39;s safe to say that the Toyota hasn&#39;t had the factory support, development, and racing heritage that the I-6 BMW mill has.

I&#39;d be curious as to just how much hp the Toyota would have to make, to get a spec. weight of 3380#. If you use 13 lb/hp (I backed that out of the 220hp target for the E36, at 2850#), you get something in the neighborhood of 260 chp. That&#39;s a 30% jump over stock, w/ an IT tune. Certainly not out of the question.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let&#39;s put this to bed:

What items have gone summarily dissmissed and are unanswered? Number them and we will address them.

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 23 2006, 07:35 AM
Is it because the torque curve will keep increasing, even though the hp flattens out?
Bingo! and torque is what wins races. I believe that it will still take a fully developed package to win races. Right now it does not. Right now a marginally driven fully prepped car can drive around a fully driven fully prepped 240z,rx7,e30 package. Again I don&#39;t want to see the E36 moved to mid pack by this change. I just want to see the best prepped and driven car have to at least work for it.


I&#39;d be curious as to just how much hp the Toyota would have to make, to get a spec. weight of 3380#. If you use 13 lb/hp (I backed that out of the 220hp target for the E36, at 2850#), you get something in the neighborhood of 260 chp. That&#39;s a 30% jump over stock, w/ an IT tune. Certainly not out of the question.

71678


Bill having worked on a bunch of different Toyota projects over the years I would say yes to 28 to 30% with all IT mods in place. I believe the car is a pig weight wise and should be looked at for a reduction and have an SIR speced for it. You may end up seeing cars built.

[JeffYoung]

Hmmm...so, the SIR doesn&#39;t affect torque (I&#39;ve seen the 2.5&#39;s torque curve and it is better than my 3.5 V80, it only restricts top end horsepower. This means that all of the mid-level prepped BMWs will not be affected by this, only those at the "top."

Again, all due respect to Jake, Andy, and everyone. You guys did a GREAT job on this. ITA looks fantastic. S looks great with the Z cars and the more importantly the 944 fixed. But the SIR, I don&#39;t get. Doesn&#39;t seem (and I no engineer so open to all further discussion on this so I can learn) that it solves one of the two big problems with the 325:

1. When developed to the max, the 325 is too fast (SIR fixes this).

2. Average 325s can run up front right now (SIR doesn&#39;t fix this).

Weight seems to me to be the solution to both problems, and clearly more in line with ITS philosophy. I wonder if there is any ability to get the CRB to reconsider?

The silence in the BMW forum is deafening. I do fear that most guys are just going to pack it up and give up ITS with the SIR.

We&#39;ll see I suppose.

That 944 sure looks good at 2500 lbs though......George, you must be bustin&#39; a nut!

[erlrich]

FWIW, I think the ITAC did an great job :023: . From what I&#39;ve come to understand about the SCCA&#39;s bureaucracy I think it was a major cuop just to get these adjustments implemented. Besides, now I don&#39;t have to worry so much about my driver loosing those extra 30 lbs he&#39;s been carrying around :D

Joe&#39;s comments did get me to thinking though (always dangerous); while I understand the rationale for not wanting to expend the time and effort reviewing cars for which there is limited data and/or are not currently being raced, I wonder if there aren&#39;t more than a few models out there (e.g. the ITS Supra) that might be racing if they were more competetively classed? Would the ITAC be willing to review other models on request, if for instance the requestor were to provide enough data to make an informed decision?

Just a thought.

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 23 2006, 02:49 PM
Let&#39;s put this to bed:

What items have gone summarily dissmissed and are unanswered? Number them and we will address them.

AB

71680


try starting with post #105

[Bill Miller]

2. Average 325s can run up front right now (SIR doesn&#39;t fix this).

I agree Jeff.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Jan 23 2006, 08:54 AM
Hmmm...so, the SIR doesn&#39;t affect torque (I&#39;ve seen the 2.5&#39;s torque curve and it is better than my 3.5 V80, it only restricts top end horsepower. This means that all of the mid-level prepped BMWs will not be affected by this, only those at the "top."

Again, all due respect to Jake, Andy, and everyone. You guys did a GREAT job on this. ITA looks fantastic. S looks great with the Z cars and the more importantly the 944 fixed. But the SIR, I don&#39;t get. Doesn&#39;t seem (and I no engineer so open to all further discussion on this so I can learn) that it solves one of the two big problems with the 325:

1. When developed to the max, the 325 is too fast (SIR fixes this).

2. Average 325s can run up front right now (SIR doesn&#39;t fix this).

Weight seems to me to be the solution to both problems, and clearly more in line with ITS philosophy. I wonder if there is any ability to get the CRB to reconsider?

The silence in the BMW forum is deafening. I do fear that most guys are just going to pack it up and give up ITS with the SIR.

We&#39;ll see I suppose.

That 944 sure looks good at 2500 lbs though......George, you must be bustin&#39; a nut!

71693



Jeff, Think about it for a minute. Torque is what moves weight but HP is what carries it. Getting moving is much harder than keeping it rolling. The BMW is heavy alredy for the class. Where it really shines is once it has that weight rolling it has more than enough HP to carry it and roll away with it. I have run against E36&#39;s and I can tell you we can pull up out of the corner everybit as good in a Z car. WHat happens when you hit 3rd gear is the rolling weight becomes nothing for that car to pull and they just flat out HP us down the straights. You can say all day long that limiting HP is not in the philosophy of the class but 3500lb sports cars are not really in the spirit of roadracing. By my numbers the E36 would have to weigh about 3400lbs to equal the straightline issue the SIR will solve. Difference is the car will still turn and brake. Your Z has been given a gift also now get to work and take advantage.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 23 2006, 11:12 AM
try starting with post #105

71701


Read post # 95.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Jan 23 2006, 03:54 PM
That 944 sure looks good at 2500 lbs though......George, you must be bustin&#39; a nut!

71693


It&#39;s actually 2575lbs... And George is still bitter... He thought the car should have been moved to ITA... ;)

[buldogge]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 23 2006, 04:21 PM
Read post # 95.

71708


With all due respect Andy... You stated the following in #95: "The BMW&#39;s can make too much HP in legal IT prep for a 2850lb minimum weight. Simple as that. Limit it to about 220hp (crank) and you &#39;fit&#39; into ITS."


I think most of us would like to know an actual RWHP #...not "about 220hp crank" (and having said that...what drivetrain loss deviation are you using to determine the output?)...but...The E36 BMW 325 SHALL ONLY BE ALLOWED to make &#39;X&#39; RWHP to fit into this class...period.

Thanx...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by buldogge@Jan 23 2006, 11:32 AM
With all due respect Andy... You stated the following in #95: "The BMW&#39;s can make too much HP in legal IT prep for a 2850lb minimum weight. Simple as that. Limit it to about 220hp (crank) and you &#39;fit&#39; into ITS."
I think most of us would like to know an actual RWHP #...not "about 220hp crank" (and having said that...what drivetrain loss deviation are you using to determine the output?)...but...The E36 BMW 325 SHALL ONLY BE ALLOWED to make &#39;X&#39; RWHP to fit into this class...period.

Thanx...

71711


We don&#39;t use WHP in the process. We use it as validation or contradiction - POST process. Crank hp is the number that runs through...

Some have done the math in this thread and others. 220 crank hp would be the target given 2850 min weight in order to not hurt the class.

[Joe Harlan]

So lets say we pin it down to "the 325 shall make 220 flywheel HP or say 195 wheel HP" How long do you think it will be before we are dynoing every 325 in a protest....Bing 221 or 196 and yer bounced?

The SIR will be the best average limiter and still allow those that wake the time to fully develop and drive the ability to shine.

I will also go one better. If anyone in the PDX/Seattle Market is willing buy the SIR and pay the Dyno fee for a day. I will give one day of my shop time to helping on the dyno to maximize your effort. I would really like to help prove this concept works and works well.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Jan 23 2006, 03:54 PM
2. Average 325s can run up front right now (SIR doesn&#39;t fix this).


71693



There is NOTHING wrong with a well prepped E36 being able to "run up front"... There IS a problem with an average prepped E36 DOMINATING the event...

The SIR will allow the E36&#39;s to remain VERY competitive if well-developed, but an average example should not be able to dominate as they sometimes have...

It&#39;s still going to take a well-prepped car and a good drive... Road racing is about the corners... It seems to be that since we are comparing the E36 to cars already weighing 2400-2650lbs, or 200+lbs lighter, there is already a handling penalty, given equal HP... Since the E36 has more hp than these same cars, that is what needed to be addressed...

Look, there is going to be ONE car that sits atop the heap... there currently IS no higher class to consider for the top of ITS, and the E36 happens to be the car that is on the top... That is the only reason it appears to be "targeted"...

I can&#39;t speak for future ITACs, but I can say that from the point of view of THIS ITAC, we don&#39;t want to be making ANY more adjustments of this nature... Certainly not to the BMW, and hopefully not to the rest of the cars as well...

Have we missed a few... Likely...

Will we work to correct mistakes... YUP...

Will there be anymore large scale changes like this coming down the pike... NOT LIKELY...

We feel we&#39;ve addressed what needed to be addressed to ensure that the classes are more balanced, and that future classifications will truely be able to fit in the existing classes...

In simple terms... we WILL NOT be making nit-picky, Production-Style adjustments to individual cars from this point forward...

Now, we want to get to work on making a place for future IT cars! :023:

[buldogge]

Darin... I know it is a moot point at this juncture...but exactly what average prepped E36 went around DOMINATING events???

Everytime the E36 debacle is touted out...we speak of Mr. Wittel as the shining example. Andy has spoken of the Autotechnic cars...do you consider any of these "average" prep?

It&#39;s all about the corners...but...the Speedsource cars I encounter at Memphis have equal or even SLIGHTLY greater straight line speed...and I don&#39;t mind saying (as if it matters now) that I have ZERO problems with straight line speed.

FWIW...My car is "fully prepped"...minus Motec... and I run just over weight limit.

What are we to do as the "fully prepped" RX-7&#39;s walk away...whine???


Originally posted by Banzai240@Jan 23 2006, 04:52 PM
There is NOTHING wrong with a well prepped E36 being able to "run up front"... There IS a problem with an average prepped E36 DOMINATING the event...

The SIR will allow the E36&#39;s to remain VERY competitive if well-developed, but an average example should not be able to dominate as they sometimes have...

It&#39;s still going to take a well-prepped car and a good drive... Road racing is about the corners... It seems to be that since we are comparing the E36 to cars already weighing 2400-2650lbs, or 200+lbs lighter, there is already a handling penalty, given equal HP... Since the E36 has more hp than these same cars, that is what needed to be addressed...

Look, there is going to be ONE car that sits atop the heap... there currently IS no higher class to consider for the top of ITS, and the E36 happens to be the car that is on the top... That is the only reason it appears to be "targeted"...

I can&#39;t speak for future ITACs, but I can say that from the point of view of THIS ITAC, we don&#39;t want to be making ANY more adjustments of this nature... Certainly not to the BMW, and hopefully not to the rest of the cars as well...

Have we missed a few... Likely...

Will we work to correct mistakes... YUP...

Will there be anymore large scale changes like this coming down the pike... NOT LIKELY...

We feel we&#39;ve addressed what needed to be addressed to ensure that the classes are more balanced, and that future classifications will truely be able to fit in the existing classes...

In simple terms... we WILL NOT be making nit-picky, Production-Style adjustments to individual cars from this point forward...

Now, we want to get to work on making a place for future IT cars! :023:

71717

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by buldogge@Jan 23 2006, 12:10 PM
Darin... I know it is a moot point at this juncture...but exactly what average prepped E36 went around DOMINATING events???

Everytime the E36 debacle is touted out...we speak of Mr. Wittel as the shining example. Andy has spoken of the Autotechnic cars...do you consider any of these "average" prep?

It&#39;s all about the corners...but...the Speedsource cars I encounter at Memphis have equal or even SLIGHTLY greater straight line speed...and I don&#39;t mind saying (as if it matters now) that I have ZERO problems with straight line speed.

FWIW...My car is "fully prepped"...minus Motec... and I run just over weight limit.

What are we to do as the "fully prepped" RX-7&#39;s walk away...whine???

71721


Good questions.

We have a e-mail exchange from a BMW owner who runs in the top 3 in his Division with STOCK motor with just bolt-ons...and that includes a FACTORY EXHAUST MANIFOLD. :bash_1_:

I use the Wittle car as a 10/10ths example. The Autotechnic cars (and yours) as a 9/10ths example - everything except for programmable fuel mangement. We can&#39;t speak to the legality of any car you run against nor can we know if you are being outdriven. That is for you to look into.

Regional results can be accurate or skewed. It takes a lot to understand if they are accurate. Then you have to take into account the track. That is why the process eliminates all of those things.

AB

[Joe Harlan]

FWIW...My car is "fully prepped"...minus Motec... and I run just over weight limit.


It is not fully prepped then. Until you have exploited every rule to it&#39;s maximum potentiol you are not fully prepped. That&#39;s like saying I cut a perfect lap but lifted early into 1 and missed a shift on the back straight. It may have been good enough for the record but it was not perfect. ;)

[turboICE]

Originally posted by buldogge@Jan 23 2006, 01:10 PM
FWIW...My car is "fully prepped"...minus Motec... and I run just over weight limit.

71721

It does make me curious though - would you say that no adjustment was justified to the car or that you would have preferred 300 lbs have been added?

Where do you think a fully prepped car should have fallen out in the process?

[buldogge]

Thanx...That&#39;s why it was in "quotes"...and hence my sarcasm involving the poor RX-7&#39;s.


Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 23 2006, 05:41 PM
It is not fully prepped then. Until you have exploited every rule to it&#39;s maximum potentiol you are not fully prepped. That&#39;s like saying I cut a perfect lap but lifted early into 1 and missed a shift on the back straight. It may have been good enough for the record but it was not perfect. ;)

71728

[buldogge]

I&#39;ve already stated that I prefer the SIR.

Are all the cars/drivers that have complained (or is it campaigned) against the E36 running fully prepped examples of their model?

How many examples of fully prepped cars are there of each model?

I think you have a lot of good racing going on around the country...and a few examples of "overdogs" ("your" phrase not mine).

Eliminate the Motec...for everyone. That&#39;s more in the spirit of IT...isn&#39;t it?




Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 23 2006, 05:44 PM
It does make me curious though - would you say that no adjustment was justified to the car or that you would have preferred 300 lbs have been added?

Where do you think a fully prepped car should have fallen out in the process?

71729

[buldogge]

Andy...My point is we are being made to "pay" for the "sins" of a few. Every marque has it big spenders...

When the RX-7&#39;s are now the ones "walking away" from us (on the straights as noted) what will be the recourse...nothing.

I can handle be outdriven (hell I&#39;m only going into my 2nd season), but HANDING the competition (fully prepped cars...right) an advantage doesn&#39;t sit well.


Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 23 2006, 05:32 PM
Good questions.

We have a e-mail exchange from a BMW owner who runs in the top 3 in his Division with STOCK motor with just bolt-ons...and that includes a FACTORY EXHAUST MANIFOLD. :bash_1_:

I use the Wittle car as a 10/10ths example. The Autotechnic cars (and yours) as a 9/10ths example - everything except for programmable fuel mangement. We can&#39;t speak to the legality of any car you run against nor can we know if you are being outdriven. That is for you to look into.

Regional results can be accurate or skewed. It takes a lot to understand if they are accurate. Then you have to take into account the track. That is why the process eliminates all of those things.

AB

71726

[latebrake]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Jan 23 2006, 11:54 AM
Hmmm...so, the SIR doesn&#39;t affect torque (I&#39;ve seen the 2.5&#39;s torque curve and it is better than my 3.5 V80, it only restricts top end horsepower. This means that all of the mid-level prepped BMWs will not be affected by this, only those at the "top."

Again, all due respect to Jake, Andy, and everyone. You guys did a GREAT job on this. ITA looks fantastic. S looks great with the Z cars and the more importantly the 944 fixed. But the SIR, I don&#39;t get. Doesn&#39;t seem (and I no engineer so open to all further discussion on this so I can learn) that it solves one of the two big problems with the 325:

1. When developed to the max, the 325 is too fast (SIR fixes this).

2. Average 325s can run up front right now (SIR doesn&#39;t fix this).

Weight seems to me to be the solution to both problems, and clearly more in line with ITS philosophy. I wonder if there is any ability to get the CRB to reconsider?

The silence in the BMW forum is deafening. I do fear that most guys are just going to pack it up and give up ITS with the SIR.

We&#39;ll see I suppose.

That 944 sure looks good at 2500 lbs though......George, you must be bustin&#39; a nut!

71693


I thought the 944 and the 924S were at 2570# did I make a mistake? I hope so.

Lawrence

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by latebrake@Jan 23 2006, 01:14 PM
I thought the 944 and the 924S were at 2570# did I make a mistake? I hope so.

Lawrence

71739


2575 each

[cherokee]

Does anyone know, realy know what this thing is going to do to their car? Is there a BMW that has run with one yet. Seen what the difference is between with and without the new part? Had one on tested on their car and seen the numbers difference? All I can say is give it a chance before you walk away. The thing that I have trouble with is the I&#39;ll take my ball and go play somewhere else attitude. Adjustments are being made as most will say that they where needed, I am sure if there has been an error made it will get fixed, things seem to be getting changed and that is more then you could say before. Give them guys a chance.

[latebrake]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 23 2006, 02:19 PM
2575 each

71740


Yeah I jumped the gun and did not read the following post. I still think the 944S2 would be a good pace car for the BMW.

And besides I want a 944S2 anyway :unsure: You guys should let me have one in ITS.

Lawrence

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by cherokee@Jan 23 2006, 01:23 PM
Does anyone know, realy know what this thing is going to do to their car? Is there a BMW that has run with one yet. Seen what the difference is between with and without the new part? Had one on tested on their car and seen the numbers difference? All I can say is give it a chance before you walk away. The thing that I have trouble with is the I&#39;ll take my ball and go play somewhere else attitude. Adjustments are being made as most will say that they where needed, I am sure if there has been an error made it will get fixed, things seem to be getting changed and that is more then you could say before. Give them guys a chance.

71741


While I agree with you 100%, we also have to understand how it feels to be adjusted every year. The issue at hand is that some Bimmer guys feel singled out and personally attacked. The vast majority seems to see the wisdom behind the moves but it is understandable how, INITIALLY, there is skeptisism in some camps. I saw it on the Honda board...but as the discussion continued, here is a quote:


I don&#39;t believe that any of these cars have been turned into "overdogs" or "underdogs" due to these changes. However, now I could also probably list 15 different ITA cars right now that if someone where to put a good effort into building, would have a great shot at winning any ITA race it entered.

I would like to think that everyone feels like we are acting in the best interest of the class...most do but some see it as the betterment of the class at the expense of "me" and some even think it&#39;s individual agenda-driven changes. Here is a quote from another BB:


I agree with you 100%. If/when the E46&#39;s start beating Andy Bettencourt, it will get a restrictor too.

I agree this is a bad precident as there was no problem to fix, other than RX-7&#39;s not dominating any more. And, now all Andy has to do is to put a restrictor on any car that beats him. The ultimate "I" class.

I&#39;m not sure if there was ever a good sactioning body to race with, but SCCA is proving again that it is run purely by politics. Why does NASA exist?

I quess we can only do what we can do and hope people give us the benefit of the doubt. I can tell you my skin is getting thicker. :)

AB

[JeffYoung]

Andy, you guys have done a great job. I&#39;m bowing out of this thread, have said my peace. I am more than willing to see how it all plays out the next couple of years. The SIR might be the way to go -- the racing will show us.

Thanks again for all the hard work.

[cherokee]

I agree that being adjusted every year would be a pain, but I think that all racers need to look at the entire pie. Lots of people have to change their car around from year to year. 2 door bars for example, I look at it as part of racing. Bars and tow hooks, and I would bet that Fire systems are not too far down the line of things we will have to have in our cars. Will people gripe about having to install those things, I would bet just like we griped about the belts. I know that these effect all cars and are safety items, but the point is that we have to make changes pretty often to run.
Racing cars is expensive, fun, scarry, madding, confusing, Go have fun.

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 23 2006, 05:41 PM
It is not fully prepped then. Until you have exploited every rule to it&#39;s maximum potentiol you are not fully prepped. That&#39;s like saying I cut a perfect lap but lifted early into 1 and missed a shift on the back straight. It may have been good enough for the record but it was not perfect. ;)

71728


That&#39;s why we should get rid of MOTEC............because you can&#39;t have a legitmate effort if you don&#39;t have it. MOTEC is something that can help if you go for it but can hurt you in many ways if you DON&#39;T have it.

It still makes me laugh that we argue (debate) so many trivial things in the GCR but noone wants to squarely confront the pink elephant in the room!!!!

(and yes, I will take every opportunity to speak my mind about motec!!!) :D :D

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Jan 23 2006, 05:24 PM
That&#39;s why we should get rid of MOTEC............because you can&#39;t have a legitmate effort if you don&#39;t have it. MOTEC is something that can help if you go for it but can hurt you in many ways if you DON&#39;T have it.

It still makes me laugh that we argue (debate) so many trivial things in the GCR but noone wants to squarely confront the pink elephant in the room!!!!

(and yes, I will take every opportunity to speak my mind about motec!!!) :D :D

R

71780


I am going to disagree here. Programmable Fuel Management (PFM) may just be coming into the &#39;affordable&#39; range. MoTec is one of the top products but it isn&#39;t the only choice.

Having said that, under your argument, other items would rise to the top. First porting of the head, then overbores, then custom headers, balancing and blueprinting (insert expensive engine mods here) - all would be the new Pink Elephant to guys who haven&#39;t done any work to their motors yet. The beef, is that MOST IT cars don&#39;t have PFM. Probably only the pointy end of the grid...

I would love to put the PFM Genie back in the bottle, but every day that passes, I believe it becomes easier to swallow and just another allowance for IT.

Any allowable engine mod can help you if you do it and hurt you if you don&#39;t...we are at zero hour.

AB

[Doc Bro]

[quote]
I am going to disagree here. Programmable Fuel Management (PFM) may just be coming into the &#39;affordable&#39; range. MoTec is one of the top products but it isn&#39;t the only choice.

Having said that, under your argument, other items would rise to the top. First porting of the head, then overbores, then custom headers, balancing and blueprinting (insert expensive engine mods here) - all would be the new Pink Elephant to guys who haven&#39;t done any work to their motors yet. The beef, is that MOST IT cars don&#39;t have PFM. Probably only the pointy end of the grid...

I would love to put the PFM Genie back in the bottle, but every day that passes, I believe it becomes easier to swallow and just another allowance for IT.

Any allowable engine mod can help you if you do it and hurt you if you don&#39;t...we are at zero hour.

AB

71787
[/quote
Andy,
As you are very well aware I have a car that would greatly benefit from MOTEC or Megasquirt but I am totally opposed to the rule as written. If you&#39;re going to write MOTEC (PFM) in as accepteble then WHY cram it in the stock box? Let&#39;s let it exist as it is sold. I mean seriously if your going to run a PFM then it&#39;s obvious that the only thing a stock box does is disguise the PFM sytem.

Alowing it to exist on its own would make it more available to the masses (who could benefit from it) and free up other companies as options. I think that anyone who uses PFM has probably totally abandoned their stock ECU anyway so the only thing that the rule promotes is the stock box to harness plug. Why not write the rule to say that the sock connection must be preserved but the box can be abandoned?

This is not rules creep at this point....the creep ocurred by allowing the PFM in the first place. This would only allow more options and a better ability to use the BEST option for your application...not just the smallest.

The Megasquirt would be great cheaper alternative to MOTEC but it is physically larger and would be harder to implement as written. And by the way, I totally understand the thought process of keeping the stock box but the arguement still doesn&#39;t hold a lot of water.

I am proud of the fact that PFM would help me greatly and I am opposed to the rule as written.


R

[buldogge]

Agreed... There are better choices (value wise) than Motec...let it out of the box since it already is allowed...what difference does it make again exactly?

Everyone is always worried about parity...letting it out of the box opens it up to a wider (cheaper) audience just as Andy jas alluded to above. ...ie $500-$1500 instead of $6k! Kinda opens the playing field a little don&#39;t you think???


Originally posted by Doc Bro@Jan 24 2006, 01:27 AM

Andy,
As you are very well aware I have a car that would greatly benefit from MOTEC or Megasquirt but I am totally opposed to the rule as written. If you&#39;re going to write MOTEC (PFM) in as accepteble then WHY cram it in the stock box? Let&#39;s let it exist as it is sold. I mean seriously if your going to run a PFM then it&#39;s obvious that the only thing a stock box does is disguise the PFM sytem.

Alowing it to exist on its own would make it more available to the masses (who could benefit from it) and free up other companies as options. I think that anyone who uses PFM has probably totally abandoned their stock ECU anyway so the only thing that the rule promotes is the stock box to harness plug. Why not write the rule to say that the sock connection must be preserved but the box can be abandoned?

This is not rules creep at this point....the creep ocurred by allowing the PFM in the first place. This would only allow more options and a better ability to use the BEST option for your application...not just the smallest.

The Megasquirt would be great cheaper alternative to MOTEC but it is physically larger and would be harder to implement as written. And by the way, I totally understand the thought process of keeping the stock box but the arguement still doesn&#39;t hold a lot of water.

I am proud of the fact that PFM would help me greatly and I am opposed to the rule as written.
R

71796

[Knestis]

I feel a need to go back and review last year&#39;s gnashing of teeth, about how much the &#39;05-spec restrictor was going to choke the e36 325s, cost everyone a bunch of money, and let the RX7&#39;s run away from the ITS pack... :)

K

[buldogge]

If the below is directed at me...I did&#39;t intend to say that they WOULD...I really was asking what would happen if they DO (given their speed last season as mentioned)?

...the answer unfortunately is...nothing.



Originally posted by Knestis@Jan 24 2006, 03:46 AM
I feel a need to go back and review last year&#39;s gnashing of teeth, about how much the &#39;05-spec restrictor was going to choke the e36 325s, cost everyone a bunch of money, and let the RX7&#39;s run away from the ITS pack... :)

K

71825

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by buldogge@Jan 23 2006, 01:04 PM
Andy...My point is we are being made to "pay" for the "sins" of a few. Every marque has it big spenders...

When the RX-7&#39;s are now the ones "walking away" from us (on the straights as noted) what will be the recourse...nothing.


71737


Am I correct in understanding that you feel the E36 guys are being made to "pay" for the "sins" of a few big spender E36 guys?? As in there are some guys who are very fast, and that the entire group must now deal with their penalty??

If thats the case, then i am not sure you understand how the classing concept works. Bottom line, cars are classed so that they will be as equal as possible when developed completely and driven to the limit. Legally, of course. Doesn&#39;t matter how many examples there are of the marque...as it&#39;s not about that...it&#39;s about the numbers.

In terms of paying, you&#39;re wrong...it&#39;s not about "paying"..it&#39;s about leveling the potential playing field. Are you at full potential? Then you are being adjusted so that your potential is closer to the class target.

If you are NOT at full potential, then you actually won&#39;t pay at all! Thats the total gimmie the SIR represents to all the guys who haven&#39;t developed their HP program to the full potential! You may feel.....nothing.!

To my way of looking at it, if you are NOT fully developed, you have just been given the best opportunity ever to buy your way closer to the front at an incredibly low price.

Your performance won&#39;t decrease a bit...but those same big spenders will back up a bit...effectively closing the gap. You could spend $800 on tires and pick up a second...for a few sessions...but this is cheaper, and lasts all season..and beyond.

The average E36 driver should be smuggly grinning, and laying low. And the top dogs will have to race for wins. Period.

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Jan 24 2006, 06:48 AM
Am I correct in understanding that you feel the E36 guys are being made to "pay" for the "sins" of a few big spender E36 guys?? As in there are some guys who are very fast, and that the entire group must now deal with their penalty??

If thats the case, then i am not sure you understand how the classing concept works. Bottom line, cars are classed so that they will be as equal as possible when developed completely and driven to the limit. Legally, of course. Doesn&#39;t matter how many examples there are of the marque...as it&#39;s not about that...it&#39;s about the numbers.

In terms of paying, you&#39;re wrong...it&#39;s not about "paying"..it&#39;s about leveling the potential playing field. Are you at full potential? Then you are being adjusted so that your potential is closer to the class target.

If you are NOT at full potential, then you actually won&#39;t pay at all! Thats the total gimmie the SIR represents to all the guys who haven&#39;t developed their HP program to the full potential! You may feel.....nothing.!

To my way of looking at it, if you are NOT fully developed, you have just been given the best opportunity ever to buy your way closer to the front at an incredibly low price.

Your performance won&#39;t decrease a bit...but those same big spenders will back up a bit...effectively closing the gap. You could spend $800 on tires and pick up a second...for a few sessions...but this is cheaper, and lasts all season..and beyond.

The average E36 driver should be smuggly grinning, and laying low. And the top dogs will have to race for wins. Period.

71839



AMEN!!!

Best explanation yet.....

Not lugging an extra 300lbs all the time is priceless!!!

R

[Bill Miller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("lateapex911")</div>
To my way of looking at it, if you are NOT fully developed, you have just been given the best opportunity ever to buy your way closer to the front at an incredibly low price.
[/b]


And THAT, IMHO, is the biggest reason that the SIR shouldn&#39;t have been used, and the E36s should have gotten lead. Look at the guy from earlier this year. I think he was from the PNW area. He was running a j/y motor w/ a stock exhaust manifold, and he was still winning/running at the front. The SIR is going to do NOTHING to his car, except cost him some $$$ to stick it on. He&#39;s still going to have an under-developed car that runs at the front.

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 24 2006, 02:38 PM
[ Look at the guy from earlier this year. I think he was from the PNW area. He was running a j/y motor w/ a stock exhaust manifold, and he was still winning/running at the front. He&#39;s still going to have an under-developed car that runs at the front.

71858



Man, I wish I had a dollar for every winning "junk yard" motor out there......

Bill, are you so sure of it that you&#39;d go to bat for the guy?

Or is it just that the competition in the PNW is less aggressive? (I doubt that one!!)

They guy maybe a spectacular driver.....remember this is not about on track performance it&#39;s about the "process" and every car being measured with an identical stick. I&#39;ll bet you dollars to donuts that the SIR effects his "junkyard" motor!!!

Let&#39;s be careful of what we base our arguements on.

R

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Jan 24 2006, 08:52 AM
Man, I wish I had a dollar for every winning "junk yard" motor out there......

Bill, are you so sure of it that you&#39;d go to bat for the guy?

Or is it just that the competition in the PNW is less aggressive? (I doubt that one!!)

They guy maybe a spectacular driver.....remember this is not about on track performance it&#39;s about the "process" and every car being measured with an identical stick. I&#39;ll bet you dollars to donuts that the SIR effects his "junkyard" motor!!!

Let&#39;s be careful of what we base our arguements on.

R

71859



Rob,

I&#39;m not the one that&#39;s claiming an SIR will only lop off the hp above the target. Look around, there are several people that have stated that. They&#39;ve also stated that if you haven&#39;t spent the big money to max out your motor program, you don&#39;t have to, because you can&#39;t use the hp above the SIR cutoff. And if an SIR will effect a motor, below the targeted hp, then quite a few people on here have been misinformed. Oh, and if you read the ITCS section on PCAs again, it actually DOES say that restrictors may be used, based on a review of &#39;actual racing performance&#39;. ;)

As far as the guy w/ the j/y motor from the PNW, he was the one that told us what he had, and how he was running. I didn&#39;t make that stuff up.

[Doc Bro]

[quote]
Oh, and if you read the ITCS section on PCAs again, it actually DOES say that restrictors may be used, based on a review of &#39;actual racing performance&#39;. ;)



That I wasn&#39;t familiar with...I&#39;m sorry. I have heard so many times that a car in not guaranteed to be competitive and on track results don&#39;t matter....etc.



As far as the guy w/ the j/y motor from the PNW, he was the one that told us what he had, and how he was running. I didn&#39;t make that stuff up.


Yes, but you quoted him without knowing if it was true or not and used it to support your position.

As I said before I guarantee the SIR will effect his "junkyard" motor. Why? Because it&#39;s not a junkyard motor.

R

[dickita15]

[quote]
Yes, but you quoted him without knowing if it was true or not and used it to support your position.

As I said before I guarantee the SIR will effect his "junkyard" motor. Why? Because it&#39;s not a junkyard motor.

R

71917

careful Rob I usually agree with you but you are coming close to doing what you accuse Bill of. claiming your opinion as fact.

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by dickita15@Jan 24 2006, 09:54 PM
careful Rob I usually agree with you but you are coming close to doing what you accuse Bill of. claiming your opinion as fact.

71951



Thanks Dick for the reality check!!! :D :D

You gave me a chuckle.

I&#39;m sorry Bill, I should have said I&#39;ll BET you the SIR has no effect on his motor. That way I&#39;ve put my money where my mouth is!! :D

I need a proofreader.

R

[dj10]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Jan 24 2006, 01:48 AM
Am I correct in understanding that you feel the E36 guys are being made to "pay" for the "sins" of a few big spender E36 guys?? As in there are some guys who are very fast, and that the entire group must now deal with their penalty??

If thats the case, then i am not sure you understand how the classing concept works. Bottom line, cars are classed so that they will be as equal as possible when developed completely and driven to the limit. Legally, of course. Doesn&#39;t matter how many examples there are of the marque...as it&#39;s not about that...it&#39;s about the numbers.

In terms of paying, you&#39;re wrong...it&#39;s not about "paying"..it&#39;s about leveling the potential playing field. Are you at full potential? Then you are being adjusted so that your potential is closer to the class target.

If you are NOT at full potential, then you actually won&#39;t pay at all! Thats the total gimmie the SIR represents to all the guys who haven&#39;t developed their HP program to the full potential! You may feel.....nothing.!

To my way of looking at it, if you are NOT fully developed, you have just been given the best opportunity ever to buy your way closer to the front at an incredibly low price.

Your performance won&#39;t decrease a bit...but those same big spenders will back up a bit...effectively closing the gap. You could spend $800 on tires and pick up a second...for a few sessions...but this is cheaper, and lasts all season..and beyond.

The average E36 driver should be smuggly grinning, and laying low. And the top dogs will have to race for wins. Period.

71839


DAMN I&#39;M GLAD I HAVE MY BOOTS ON CAUSE THE SHIT IS GETTING REALLY DEEP AROUND HERE!!
Show me the side by side dyno charts! :D

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 24 2006, 03:34 PM
DAMN I&#39;M GLAD I HAVE MY BOOTS ON CAUSE THE SHIT IS GETTING REALLY DEEP AROUND HERE!!
Show me the side by side dyno charts! :D

71959
Well hell lets start with yours. put a true sheet to prove what a budget program runs for HP.

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 24 2006, 10:34 PM
DAMN I&#39;M GLAD I HAVE MY BOOTS ON CAUSE THE SHIT IS GETTING REALLY DEEP AROUND HERE!!
Show me the side by side dyno charts! :D

71959



Better yet, seeing how you have to run one if you&#39;re going to stay give us a before and after SIR pull to show us how "put out" and segregated you are. Show me the side by side dyno charts applies both ways. It&#39;s been said to me many times and it stinks, but it&#39;s true!

I understand your emotion however your point is not based in any discernable science. The SIR was designed for a given (high rpm) outcome- the research was done. A person doesn&#39;t need a PhD in Physics to understand the 300 lbs would always be present exerting its effect on the whole system. To the DETREMENT of the system. Again, how much time do you spend abouve 6000 rpm?

R

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 24 2006, 05:37 PM
Well hell lets start with yours. put a true sheet to prove what a budget program runs for HP.

71960

Joe,
I sent in my dyno sheets from my restrictor plates. It proved a drop in hp and torque.
What is the 27mm sir going to do to our hp? Does anyone have a target number?
It&#39;s going to cost a lot to get more hp now I think.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 24 2006, 06:10 PM
Joe,
I sent in my dyno sheets from my restrictor plates. It proved a drop in hp and torque.
What is the 27mm sir going to do to our hp? Does anyone have a target number?
It&#39;s going to cost a lot to get more hp now I think.

71977
Well DJ there are some that didn&#39;t just stop at the flat plate. There are to many ways to cheat it. I would enjoy seeing your dyno information and could maybe offer some suggestions if you don&#39;t want it public i would understand.

I think in the other thread it was stated 215 to 220HP is the target for the SIR.

[buldogge]

Well 220bhp with an 18% drivetrain loss=180rwhp 15% loss=187

Does the 27mm SIR actually support 220bhp or is it 190bhp as some have suggested???

190bhp=156-161rwhp!

Unacceptable if thats the case...

What shall be the recourse again...I must have missed that part.


Originally posted by dj10@Jan 25 2006, 01:10 AM
Joe,
I sent in my dyno sheets from my restrictor plates. It proved a drop in hp and torque.
What is the 27mm sir going to do to our hp? Does anyone have a target number?
It&#39;s going to cost a lot to get more hp now I think.

71977

[lateapex911]

Mark-

Read the note from Bob Dowie of the comp board for the HP answer. It&#39;s crank HP.

Guys-
E36 drivers without strong engine development shouldn&#39;t see the same HP losses as guys with stronger programs.

But guys with stronger programs might have better torque, throttle rsponse and so on. The SIR should have no effect on those factors so really well developed cars will still have an advantage in that area. Of course, the difference will vary from car to car and program to program. But when the limit is reached, the developed cars will not have the top part of their curve. So, in some respects, the gulf between the developed and the non developed will grow smaller.

In that respect, lesser developed cars should be breathing a sigh of relief. If the gift of lead had been handed down, all would be affected, and guys running tight budget programs could have to give up events due to tire and brake wear issues.

But......to run at the very front, it still takes a great driver in a sorted chassis, with a good powerplant. So development is needed to make the curve as strong as it can be. Wins are wins...it doesn&#39;t matter if it&#39;s 1 inch or 1000 inches.

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 24 2006, 08:24 PM
Well DJ there are some that didn&#39;t just stop at the flat plate. There are to many ways to cheat it. I would enjoy seeing your dyno information and could maybe offer some suggestions if you don&#39;t want it public i would understand.

I think in the other thread it was stated 215 to 220HP is the target for the SIR.

71978


Joe,
Darin has my dyno sheet, you and only you can see them. I don&#39;t want them spread over this forum. I also believe that maybe 1 in 30 or 40 bmw&#39;s have near that kind of hp (220) and I know one of best engine builders in the business. That HP is definately motec. Like I said 1 in 30+.
You talk about cheating with a rp!? How about the guys that are running 2.8L bottom ends.LOL When did anyone check a bottom end of any IT car? Whole different subject.
I bet Rob Huffmaster with his RX7 is laughing his ass off right now, and I can&#39;t blame him. hehe

[lateapex911]

It&#39;s not just 2.8 bottom ends that are issues, and it isn&#39;t just BMWs either. But we are all responsible for controlling that. It&#39;s not easy, but it&#39;s for the the betterment of the sport.

If you know of something like that, you really have a duty to fulfill...somehow.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 24 2006, 07:07 PM
Joe,
You talk about cheating with a rp!?
71985

No secret, how about a tapered spacer block to blow through the restrictor. The moment I saw the spacer allowed I knew the plate was made worthless. The taper is why the SIR requires a smaller opening to restrict air. so if you engineered your flat plat right you had little to no effect and maybe even picked up midrange in your power curve.

As far as the 2.8 stuff goes I think we need to takes some heads off from time to time and I don&#39;t care that it costs a few bucks. I can remember the days when a region would pull the heads off all the IT cars at the end of a weekend. I am all for compliance and I will gladly help anyone with a protest if there is solid evidence of a wrong.

[Knestis]

Shoulda&#39; gone with the lead, instead. We are going to look back on this as the first step down a long road to an IT fustercluck.

K

[buldogge]

You&#39;re talking about cheating...pure and simple...regardless of a restrictor plate (flat plate...what were you gonna mess with exactly?) or a make/model of car. The spacer was to be max .25" and was to be the same size as the TB with NO TAPER. You&#39;re not talking creative engineering...you&#39;re talking cheating...and unfortunately...I think we could find examples of E36&#39;s, RX-7&#39;s, 240z&#39;s, et al cheating.

2.8 crank (or 3.0 or 3.2 for that matter) and M3 cams (don&#39;t blame me...I&#39;m non-VANOS ;) ) well that&#39;s another story...but...again...there will be examples of this across marques (ported housings, etc.).

None of this has anything to do with the average honest IT racer...Us E36 guys included in case you were wondering!


Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 25 2006, 03:16 AM
No secret, how about a tapered spacer block to blow through the restrictor. The moment I saw the spacer allowed I knew the plate was made worthless. The taper is why the SIR requires a smaller opening to restrict air. so if you engineered your flat plat right you had little to no effect and maybe even picked up midrange in your power curve.

As far as the 2.8 stuff goes I think we need to takes some heads off from time to time and I don&#39;t care that it costs a few bucks. I can remember the days when a region would pull the heads off all the IT cars at the end of a weekend. I am all for compliance and I will gladly help anyone with a protest if there is solid evidence of a wrong.

72007

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by buldogge@Jan 24 2006, 09:44 PM
You&#39;re talking about cheating...pure and simple...regardless of a restrictor plate (flat plate...what were you gonna mess with exactly?) or a make/model of car. The spacer was to be max .25" and was to be the same size as the TB with NO TAPER. You&#39;re not talking creative engineering...you&#39;re talking cheating...and unfortunately...I think we could find examples of E36&#39;s, RX-7&#39;s, 240z&#39;s, et al cheating.

2.8 crank (or 3.0 or 3.2 for that matter) and M3 cams (don&#39;t blame me...I&#39;m non-VANOS ;) ) well that&#39;s another story...but...again...there will be examples of this across marques (ported housings, etc.).

None of this has anything to do with the average honest IT racer...Us E36 guys included in case you were wondering!

72020
Mark there are other ways to get to the same thing. My point is the SIR is not something thats gonna get cheated and thats the best part of it.

I know other marques cheat and I don&#39;t believe that all BMW&#39;s are cheated up any more than any other marque. the deal with the flat plate restrictor is it was not effective cause folks found a way around it.

As far as SIRS go I am pretty comfortable saying Kirk won&#39;t be correct on this.

[ITANorm]

This whole thread has vacillated between logical and insane.

<Steward hat on>

If you&#39;re not willing to file a protest against a car that you KNOW is illegal - quit your bellyachin&#39; about illegal cars. Each of you probably knows WAY more about what is going on in your respective class and make and group than we (as stewards) do (or can). I, personally, know ONE make / model of car inside out - mine, the MR2. I know one engine inside out, the 4AGELU. If you suspect one of those is cheating, ask me to look at / watch it - and I can probably tell you not only if it&#39;s illegal, but if so what the cheat probably is.

I also know how to port an RX engine, and how to test for it (cheaply and easily), but I&#39;m no RX-* guru.

In short - don&#39;t expect the officials to catch all the cheaters. Especially if you&#39;re not even willing to help them. It&#39;s kind&#39;a like calling the cops after you&#39;ve seen somebody steal your stuff, but being unwilling to give them a description - and then whining loudly to all who will listen that there are too many thieves out there!

[Bill Miller]

I also believe that maybe 1 in 30 or 40 bmw&#39;s have near that kind of hp (220) and I know one of best engine builders in the business. That HP is definately motec. Like I said 1 in 30+.
You talk about cheating with a rp!? How about the guys that are running 2.8L bottom ends.LOL When did anyone check a bottom end of any IT car? Whole different subject.


dj,

189 -> 220 is a slightly more than 16% gain w/ an IT tune. Are you trying to tell us that you need MoTec to get that much? Please see my earlier comment about ears and rain!

And how about the guys that are running 2.8 bottom ends? If you guys (the bmw drivers) know about these cars, and don&#39;t do anything about it (hang paper), you&#39;ve got absolutely no room to bitch. You almost make it sound like you want somebody else to police the class for you. :unsure:

[ITANorm]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 25 2006, 07:01 AM
And how about the guys that are running 2.8 bottom ends? If you guys (the bmw drivers) know about these cars, and don&#39;t do anything about it (hang paper), you&#39;ve got absolutely no room to bitch. You almost make it sound like you want somebody else to police the class for you. :unsure:

72039


OMG, Bill. You and I are agreeing on something??? :119:

Your avatar must have something to do with it.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by ITANorm@Jan 25 2006, 12:09 PM
OMG, Bill. You and I are agreeing on something??? :119:

Your avatar must have something to do with it.

72112

:023: ;)

[dj10]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 25 2006, 07:01 AM
dj,

189 -> 220 is a slightly more than 16% gain w/ an IT tune. Are you trying to tell us that you need MoTec to get that much? Please see my earlier comment about ears and rain!

And how about the guys that are running 2.8 bottom ends? If you guys (the bmw drivers) know about these cars, and don&#39;t do anything about it (hang paper), you&#39;ve got absolutely no room to bitch. You almost make it sound like you want somebody else to police the class for you. :unsure:

72039


What post number do you want me to look at?
You are talking about rwhp correct? And if you are, there is no way you will get 220rwhp with a programable system......period!

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 25 2006, 04:36 PM
What post number do you want me to look at?
You are talking about rwhp correct? And if you are, there is no way you will get 220rwhp with a programable system......period!

72163

I&#39;d bet 205 to 210 WHP is a realistic number though. With dual Vanos I bet the torque curve is no loner a curve....likely flat as a pool table....

[ed325its]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 25 2006, 11:57 PM
I&#39;d bet 205 to 210 WHP is a realistic number though. With dual Vanos I bet the torque curve is no loner a curve....likely flat as a pool table....

72166

I am not aware of any E36 ITS car with double Vanos. IIRC, double vanos was not introduced until post &#39;95MY. My car is a &#39;95 and runs single vanos. I am also not aware of any one using M3 cams. That difference is significant and easily questioned and caught. I am also not aware of anyone using 328 cranks (likely little to gain from this mod). Nor do I know anyone using an improper TB/RP spacer. So, I have policed the ranks of my small corner of ITS and found no cheaters.

[Banzai240]

Awe... Never mind... :rolleyes:

[lateapex911]

Ok, this has predictably become an E36 thread.

But let me ask if the following response is accurate, judging from this thread.

General approval for the changes across the board, with the excepption of:

-The E36 guys, who think they are being punished.
-And Kirk, Ron, and jeff, who think the philosophy was shortchanged.
-And Bill, who agrees and thinks they should be houlin 250 or 300 pounds of lead in the wunrdekars.

What surprises me is such a one make focus.

I&#39;d be interested to hear, just out of curiosity, about thoughts on the rest. Will the scales of balance tip? Get more even? Did one car get screwed? Or is there one car that escaped unscathed?

To start it off, in private conversation, I have heard the following comments.

The CRX didn&#39;t get enough. (This from a Honda tuner)
The Miata is going to clean up
The &#39;Tegs won&#39;t notice the weight, most run heavy now.
And, The RX-7 needed a little more help.

All A cars..
Thoughts?

[ddewhurst]

With the 1st gen RX-7 thank you for the gift of 100 less pounds. After testing, we&#39;ll see. ;)

[turboICE]

I felt the ITA 240SX was fair enough on the surface compared to other ITA changes - that view could change if the there is no effect on the Teg though. I assumed that front runners were getting there having made weight.

On paper I have been expecting ITA to be much more competitive with some race long battles and variety on the podium as result. I would be disappointed if the changes were made knowing that the effect wouldn&#39;t translate on track for the front runners of a model.

[Knestis]

I have a lot of faith - seriously! - in the new system that the ITAC has implemented, so I&#39;m not going to theorize based on on-track observations about what&#39;s going to be faster than what. It doesn&#39;t matter, since math made the decisions.

I wonder about that 2200 pound Mazda - it looks like a goof. I don&#39;t think that the 1st-gen Integra can get as light as it needs to be in A, but figure that it couldn&#39;t go to B because they would need new cages. That&#39;s how it happens sometimes.

In all - a good thing.

K

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 25 2006, 06:57 PM
I&#39;d bet 205 to 210 WHP is a realistic number though. With dual Vanos I bet the torque curve is no loner a curve....likely flat as a pool table....

72166


Joe,
Trust me, those numbers could be achieved with a programable system only (E36 Single Vanos). That is why I am against motec&#39;s and alike in IT racing. But on the other hand what about the RX7 in the NE for sale and is advertised at 181+rwhp? That&#39;s a lot of hp.

[dj10]

Darin,
Does anyone have numbers from any testing of the sir on a E36? I hope this is not some perveted SCCA experiment. :D

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 25 2006, 05:36 PM
What post number do you want me to look at?
You are talking about rwhp correct? And if you are, there is no way you will get 220rwhp with a programable system......period!

72163



Did you even read the note from Bob Dowie?

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7177 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7177)

That would be 220 CRANK hp.

[Bill Miller]

nevermind

[dj10]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 25 2006, 09:01 PM
Did you even read the note from Bob Dowie?

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7177 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7177)

That would be 220 CRANK hp.

72188

Help me out here, the mustang dyno I was on measured in rwhp? How do you measure at the crank?
I read it but no one provided any evidence on how much it will drain from the engine and at what rpm.
It&#39;s also very expensive @ almost $400.00!

[dj10]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 25 2006, 09:04 PM
Let&#39;s see, 220 * .82 = 180.4

:rolleyes:

72189


Bill,
Crank hp is as usless as tits on a bore hog! Everyone should be talking rwhp.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 25 2006, 06:55 PM
Joe,
Trust me, those numbers could be achieved with a programable system only (E36 Single Vanos). That is why I am against motec&#39;s and alike in IT racing. But on the other hand what about the RX7 in the NE for sale and is advertised at 181+rwhp? That&#39;s a lot of hp.

72185


210 WHP * 18% loss = 248 crank HP at 2850 BMW = 11.49
181 WHP * 18% loss= 214 crank HP at 2680 RX7 = 12.52
165 WHP * 18% loss= 195 crank HP at 2430 240Z = 12.46


Looks kinda like a pattern here. DJ, I agree that Motec has no business here but for now we have it so our stucture must refect that.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Jan 25 2006, 08:32 PM

I&#39;d be interested to hear, just out of curiosity, about thoughts on the rest. Will the scales of balance tip? Get more even? Did one car get screwed? Or is there one car that escaped unscathed?

72178


Overall a great plan and if a couple of the adjustments need to be made later we have the system for it. My only real complaint is the release states not every car was adjusted. The way I see it, if you&#39;re going to clean house, do it top to bottom and get it all done. By not doing so we&#39;ve left the door open for everyone to request their car be rexamined and left some people feeling alienated. I understand it&#39;s a lot of work to track down data on every car but it still seems a shame not to deal with all of this now. I hope were not leaving another miss for a future ITAC comittee to deal with down the road.

Again, overall we should have a better variety of cars running up front. :happy204:

[AntonioGG]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 25 2006, 08:33 PM
210 WHP * 18% loss = 248 crank HP at 2850 BMW = 11.49
181 WHP * 18% loss= 214 crank HP at 2680 RX7 = 12.52
165 WHP * 18% loss= 195 crank HP at 2430 240Z = 12.46
Looks kinda like a pattern here. DJ, I agree that Motec has no business here but for now we have it so our stucture must refect that.

72194


I&#39;ll have to correct you on the math if you don&#39;t mind.

The formula is CHP*(1-DL)=WHP

So to estimate crank HP from wheel HP, you divide WHP by (1-DL).

For 210WHP and 18% driveline loss you&#39;re talking 256 Crank HP
for 181, 220
for 165, 201

Sorry for intruding. Carry on. :023:

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by AntonioGG@Jan 26 2006, 03:58 AM
I&#39;ll have to correct you on the math if you don&#39;t mind.

The formula is CHP*(1-DL)=WHP

So to estimate crank HP from wheel HP, you divide WHP by (1-DL).

For 210WHP and 18% driveline loss you&#39;re talking 256 Crank HP
for 181, 220
for 165, 201

Sorry for intruding. Carry on. :023:

72213


Thanks Antonio...

So, for 195whp (Mr. Shafer&#39;s Dyno sheets...), 195whp / .82 = 237.8hp...

Incidently... 189hp + 25% IT-Prep Increase = 189hp * 1.25 = 236.25hp...

Doesn&#39;t look that far off to me...

If the car were classified today, THAT is the number that would be used...

Enjoy!

;)

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by AntonioGG@Jan 25 2006, 08:58 PM
I&#39;ll have to correct you on the math if you don&#39;t mind.

The formula is CHP*(1-DL)=WHP

So to estimate crank HP from wheel HP, you divide WHP by (1-DL).

For 210WHP and 18% driveline loss you&#39;re talking 256 Crank HP
for 181, 220
for 165, 201

Sorry for intruding. Carry on. :023:

72213


haha, thanks good thing I am not in charge... ;)

[ITANorm]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Jan 25 2006, 08:32 PM
I&#39;d be interested to hear, just out of curiosity, about thoughts on the rest. Will the scales of balance tip? Get more even? Did one car get screwed? Or is there one car that escaped unscathed?

Thoughts?

72178


The MR2 adjustment was appreciated - by most of the people I&#39;ve talked to (keyboarded with ??). From an instigator, and one who is willing to push the envelope, I&#39;ll say the decision for a 100# weight break was about as "fair" as one could reasonably expect - thus my previous kudos.

Reasoning:
Despite bitching from certain people that 2270# is unattainable, I know of at least 3 legal cars that can get to that weight (and I feel that an "all stops out and cashflow-be-damned" dry weight of around 2050# or so is reachable). It, alone, won&#39;t make the cars front-runners, but with the adjustments to some of the other ITA cars, it should certainly tighten up the field.

Although reclassifying to ITB would have been preferable to most, I understand the problem that would have existed with exceeding the legal cage requirements. Since the weight of the car was only 10# under the magic number, any addition would have caused an increase in tubing dimension. I&#39;m one who would have been affected, but I could afford to turn my year-old custom cage into so much ballast. Many couldn&#39;t. (My only question here: Is there not precedence for grandfathered allowance here - like maybe from the GTL merger?)

Although the attainable WHP of an IT-legal 4AG-powered car is debatable, it is notable that the MR2 and AE86 Corolla&#39;s "cousins" - specifically the Geo Prizm GSi and Corolla FX-16 - are both in ITB.

As was stated by someone earlier - we&#39;ll have to play with it and see. ;)

And, again, speaking for my fellow MR2 drivers and me - thanks!

[CaptainWho]

Our first gen RX-7 (ITA/7) rolls over the scales with half a tank of fuel and the lighter driver (~200#) at around 2450. We&#39;ve got a lot of work to do to get down to 2280#, both on the car and the drivers. :-) But we appreciate the chance to do it.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 25 2006, 08:09 PM
Help me out here, the mustang dyno I was on measured in rwhp? How do you measure at the crank?
I read it but no one provided any evidence on how much it will drain from the engine and at what rpm.
It&#39;s also very expensive @ almost $400.00!

72190


Did you read how these things work?

[Geo]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 25 2006, 08:45 PM
My only real complaint is the release states not every car was adjusted. The way I see it, if you&#39;re going to clean house, do it top to bottom and get it all done. By not doing so we&#39;ve left the door open for everyone to request their car be rexamined and left some people feeling alienated. I understand it&#39;s a lot of work to track down data on every car but it still seems a shame not to deal with all of this now.

72211


1. Not all cars needed adjustment.

2. There truly were only a small handful of obscure cars (for which none of us had any info) that did not get very careful consideration. For most of them, nobody could even remember the last time they saw one in IT. If need be they can be handled on a case by case basis.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Geo@Jan 26 2006, 06:49 AM
1. Not all cars needed adjustment.

2. There truly were only a small handful of obscure cars (for which none of us had any info) that did not get very careful consideration. For most of them, nobody could even remember the last time they saw one in IT. If need be they can be handled on a case by case basis.

72233



Do you really want to go down that road George? Like I said, I think you guys on the ITAC have done a geat job. But it sure makes you scratch your head when the E36 gets an SIR and left @ 2850#, but you&#39;ve got the Supra a page or two away, that&#39;s left at a portly 3380#.

But, since we&#39;ve got cars that make ~189 - 200 hp stock, classified in ITS, maybe it&#39;s time to ask for the &#39;78 - &#39;81 911 SC 3.0 to be classified. Stock hp is 180 - 188. Sounds like it would make a great ITS car. For that matter, classify the &#39;84 - 89 cars w/ the 3.2 (231 hp stock) w/ a 27mm SIR.

[Greg Amy]

Bill, I think you completely missed George&#39;s point. I believe what he is saying is that within the cars already classified some were not adjusted due to A) not needing it, or B) not enough info on the car to do so, or C) no one is currently driving one so why waste the time?

If, however, someone shows up in one and can provide the adequate information on it, then it will be considered for going through the formulaic process.

That&#39;s all he&#39;s saying, nothing more.

P.S. Bill, my friend, you&#39;ve been on a tirade this week...seriously: everything OK?

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

Tirade? Hardly! :lol:

That&#39;s just the point Greg, we don&#39;t want to encourage people to ask for adjustments on cars. This should have been (and I&#39;m sure it was, for the most part), an objective excercise. As far as not having info on fairly recent cars, I would think that there should be MVMA data on file, from when they were classified. The Supra has barely been on the books for 10 years, if that.

And did you ever stop to think that the reason no one is driving a supra, is because it&#39;s a total pig at 3380#? Not only wouldn&#39;t it stand a chance at that weight, it would eat tires and brakes. Nobody in their right mind would build a car like that, and then HOPE that JUST MAYBE it might get adjusted. Especially given the history of requests for adjustments to INDIVIDUAL CARS!

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 26 2006, 08:22 AM
Bill, I think you completely missed George&#39;s point. I believe what he is saying is that within the cars already classified some were not adjusted due to A) not needing it, or B) not enough info on the car to do so, or C) no one is currently driving one so why waste the time?

72239


After the initial decision came out I contacted Andy and asked him about my car. His reponse was I should petition the CRB to move the car from ITA to ITB. By the criteria you list above:

A ) It was far enought out of line that it should be moved a class so it must have needed adjustment.
B ) Info, naturally I can find it easily, but even a 2 minute search turns up stock hp numbers which was all Andy needed to tell me it isn&#39;t classed properly now.
C ) Obviously I am racing one and there is another forum member with one.

So if this car got missed, how many others slipped by? My point isn&#39;t so much about my car as it is that it raises doubts about all of the other cars that weren&#39;t adjusted. I would think the guy racing the Monza in my area would also wonder why his 115 hp ITA car still weighs 2810 pounds. You may not have much info on the car, but clearly the car is classed wrong.

By setting the criteria above it just seems to create the opening for everyone to request their car be rexamined. Plus, if no one is racing a car why not adjust it based on the information available? Either it will remain unraced or someone might actually build one and we gain a little diversity. IF they manage to fully develop an unsupported car and win races you can still use the PCA process to fix it then. But at the very least we don&#39;t have to deal with it 5 years down the road when the next ITAC wonders why the process didn&#39;t fix the 2800, 115 hp car in ITA.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 26 2006, 08:18 AM
After the initial decision came out I contacted Andy and asked him about my car. His reponse was I should petition the CRB to move the car from ITA to ITB. By the criteria you list above:

A ) It was far enought out of line that it should be moved a class so it must have needed adjustment.
B ) Info, naturally I can find it easily, but even a 2 minute search turns up stock hp numbers which was all Andy needed to tell me it isn&#39;t classed properly now.
C ) Obviously I am racing one and there is another forum member with one.

So if this car got missed, how many others slipped by? My point isn&#39;t so much about my car as it is that it raises doubts about all of the other cars that weren&#39;t adjusted. I would think the guy racing the Monza in my area would also wonder why his 115 hp ITA car still weighs 2810 pounds. You may not have much info on the car, but clearly the car is classed wrong.

By setting the criteria above it just seems to create the opening for everyone to request their car be rexamined. Plus, if no one is racing a car why not adjust it based on the information available? Either it will remain unraced or someone might actually build one and we gain a little diversity. IF they manage to fully develop an unsupported car and win races you can still use the PCA process to fix it then. But at the very least we don&#39;t have to deal with it 5 years down the road when the next ITAC wonders why the process didn&#39;t fix the 2800, 115 hp car in ITA.

72255


Well said Matt, you&#39;re my hero!! :P :023: :happy204: :smilie_pokal: :lol:

[dickita15]

I really do not see the problem with someone who thinks that a particular car was overlooked asking the ITAC to run the numbers. Maybe if the there was a simple form that listed the data you need to gather for the ITAC so they could review a car quickly and determine if more work is justified.

[Greg Amy]

Bill sez: "...we don&#39;t want to encourage people to ask for adjustments on cars. "

Matt sez: ".. it just seems to create the opening for everyone to request their car be rexamined."

I agree with Bill; I disagree with Matt&#39;s implication.

Bill&#39;s concerned that folks will whine to get their cars adjusted for cometition potential, a la Production; I agree with Bill that we should not do that. Matt&#39;s implication is that we do not want folks asking for all cars to go through the same formulaic process; I disagree with that.

If someone comes up with a currently-classed car that has not gone through the same objective re-weighing process that others have, I do not see any problem with them sending a request that says "please run my car through the PCA process; here&#39;s an MVMA and/or VTS for your review."

There&#39;s nothing wrong with this. However, I just don&#39;t see why the ITAC has to deal with all twenty-hundred cars out there in advance if no one is racing them. It&#39;s certainly unreasonable to make them have to do all the research and homework for all twenty-hundred cars, especially if those cars are really obscure and/or not being raced. they picked the most common ones out there, especially the class high- and low-hitters, and worked them through the process.

You&#39;re not in there and you think you should be? Write a letter, you&#39;ll (both!) get a response.

Greg

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 26 2006, 09:18 AM
After the initial decision came out I contacted Andy and asked him about my car. His reponse was I should petition the CRB to move the car from ITA to ITB. By the criteria you list above:

A ) It was far enought out of line that it should be moved a class so it must have needed adjustment.
B ) Info, naturally I can find it easily, but even a 2 minute search turns up stock hp numbers which was all Andy needed to tell me it isn&#39;t classed properly now.
C ) Obviously I am racing one and there is another forum member with one.

So if this car got missed, how many others slipped by? My point isn&#39;t so much about my car as it is that it raises doubts about all of the other cars that weren&#39;t adjusted. I would think the guy racing the Monza in my area would also wonder why his 115 hp ITA car still weighs 2810 pounds. You may not have much info on the car, but clearly the car is classed wrong.

By setting the criteria above it just seems to create the opening for everyone to request their car be rexamined. Plus, if no one is racing a car why not adjust it based on the information available? Either it will remain unraced or someone might actually build one and we gain a little diversity. IF they manage to fully develop an unsupported car and win races you can still use the PCA process to fix it then. But at the very least we don&#39;t have to deal with it 5 years down the road when the next ITAC wonders why the process didn&#39;t fix the 2800, 115 hp car in ITA.

72255


I have no problem with people writing in and asking us to consider their car for another look if it didn&#39;t get any change. Here is what *I* think a resonable person would do:

Look at the stock HP level of the car
Look at the stock HP level of other cars in the class
Look at the suspension design of the car vs others in the class
Understand that if it&#39;s less than 100lbs out of whack, it probably isn&#39;t gonna change

If it looks similar, then I see no reason why not. The reason we didn&#39;t change some cars is that we didn&#39;t want to make a move on a car that info was hard to find, it was obscure and we overlooked something that created a rare, 10-left-in-the-country overdog.

The Monza is a good example. 115hp from a 3.8l V6!!! There are too many things to consider when looking at this car we don&#39;t know. WHY is the car rated so low from Chevy? Cam limitations? Crushed by emissions equipment? Crappy intake? Exhaust holding it back? WHO KNOWS? But the problem is that IF a car with these specs were to hit ITB based on what we know and what we don&#39;t, it COULD run wild. Nobody runs them anyway. If the few who do care to send in info that will plead their case, so be it. We went through a lot of cars, and some got passed over for a few reasons, just like this one. RISKS, were not on our agenda. It was too much work to do the research on these kinds of cars...if the competitors want to prove something, bring it on! I rewad all the letters.

As it is, the Z3 1.9 and the Protege got messed up/missed. We are correcting.

The ironic thing in this instance is this: Once Matt verified that his car may be better suited fo ITB and not a weight reduction in ITA, he said he would rather keep it in ITA so he didn&#39;t have to buy different wheels, etc.

Be careful what you ask for. I know it isn&#39;t a perfect system, but we are trying to do the most we can without making a huge mistake.

AB

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 26 2006, 09:34 AM
Bill sez: "...we don&#39;t want to encourage people to ask for adjustments on cars. "

Matt sez: ".. it just seems to create the opening for everyone to request their car be rexamined."

I agree with Bill; I disagree with Matt&#39;s implication.

Bill&#39;s concerned that folks will whine to get their cars adjusted for cometition potential, a la Production; I agree with Bill that we should not do that. Matt&#39;s implication is that we do not want folks asking for all cars to go through the same formulaic process; I disagree with that.

72262


Greg, maybe you are misinterpretting what I said. My implication is that EVERY CAR SHOULD go through the same process, but the execution left some cars out of the process for various reasons. It&#39;s not even clear right now why some cars were changed and others were not, you have to ask an ITAC number on a case by case basis to see if it&#39;s was reviewed and deemed appropriate, they didn&#39;t have any info, didn&#39;t know of any being raced . . . If you wait a year, 2 years, five years will anyone be able to explain why car X was or wasn&#39;t adjusted?

I thought the reason for this entire exercise was to get every car classed by the same criteria. If that was done than there wouldn&#39;t be a need for anyone to write to have their car examined, as they would know it&#39;s already been done. If you give people the hope that writing a letter will result in a change to the spec for their car than that starts to sound a lot like Prod. Sure it should be an option for obvious errors (Z3, protege) but that should be a rare problem. Not a requirement for a quarter of the spec book.


Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 26 2006, 09:34 AM
If someone comes up with a currently-classed car that has not gone through the same objective re-weighing process that others have, I do not see any problem with them sending a request that says "please run my car through the PCA process; here&#39;s an MVMA and/or VTS for your review."

72262


Shouldn&#39;t SCCA already have a VTS for every classed vehicle? :)


Originally posted by GregAmy+Jan 26 2006, 09:34 AM-->
There&#39;s nothing wrong with this. However, I just don&#39;t see why the ITAC has to deal with all twenty-hundred cars out there in advance if no one is racing them. It&#39;s certainly unreasonable to make them have to do all the research and homework for all twenty-hundred cars, especially if those cars are really obscure and/or not being raced. they picked the most common ones out there, especially the class high- and low-hitters, and worked them through the process.

72262
[/b]

I never said you should class everything ever made, but the just over 300 hundred that we currently have should ALL be done the same way. Not picking and choosing based on some arbitrary criteria. The whole idea behind this was to correct the randomness of the previous methods, wasn&#39;t it?

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Jan 26 2006, 09:57 AM
The ironic thing in this instance is this: Once Matt verified that his car may be better suited fo ITB and not a weight reduction in ITA, he said he would rather keep it in ITA so he didn&#39;t have to buy different wheels, etc.

72267


Andy, you&#39;re leaving out the part where I said I would leave prefer it stay there while I build a new car! And to be completely honest I would really have preferred a reduction in weight in ITA and the chance to make a fully prepped car competitive, but that doesn&#39;t appear to be an option.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 26 2006, 07:57 AM

The Monza is a good example. 115hp from a 3.8l V6!!! There are too many things to consider when looking at this car we don&#39;t know. WHY is the car rated so low from Chevy? Cam limitations? Crushed by emissions equipment? Crappy intake? Exhaust holding it back? WHO KNOWS? But the problem is that IF a car with these specs were to hit ITB based on what we know and what we don&#39;t, it COULD run wild. Nobody runs them anyway. If the few who do care to send in info that will plead their case, so be it. We went through a lot of cars, and some got passed over for a few reasons, just like this one. RISKS, were not on our agenda. It was too much work to do the research on these kinds of cars...if the competitors want to prove something, bring it on! I rewad all the letters.


AB

72267



I&#39;ll tell you Andy. 3.8 V\6 115hp but here is the catch...185ftlbs of torque at 2000 RPM. The cars of these days had a carb that was junk(replacable per ITCS) Ran an AIR pump that sucked 15HP right out of them Exhaust manifolds that were as poorly designed as possible. ect. ect. This was the type of car we built in america during these years. My guess is this is one of those oddballs that would find very large gains in HP with very little effort. This same engine just a few years later was making 175 HP and in current EFI GM trim makes 200+ in stock trim. So not only is there a lack of interest the cautious approach is a good one.

Next as far as all cars going through tthe process at some point that may be good. You also have to remember that a plan has to be sold to a large group that had no interest in changing IT, the BOD. I think what has happened is an excellent step for IT and it&#39;s future. I would suggest to everybody that we not wear this committee out with a zillion questions as to why all thing aren&#39;t perfect yet. I owuld bet money that if a supra is built in the near future and asked for a weight reducttion and an SIR they my actually get it. I know I would support it.

[dj10]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 26 2006, 06:48 AM
Did you read how these things work?

72230


Yes I read about them, but no one has shown any test results or even hypothectial data. I&#39;m skeptical unless I see some prove, I&#39;d like to see some data before I plop down $400.00, wouldn&#39;t you?

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, let&#39;s assume this for now:

All the cars have been reviewed, and the ones that needed to be adjusted, got adjusted. If you disagree with a situation, write a letter.

95% of the time, we will be sending a "Car is properly classified" response to Fast Track.

Maybe 5% of the cars got overlooked (on-purpose) - for the exact reason in my Monza example above.

Every car got looked at. Some we changed, some we didn&#39;t need to, some we passed on based on lack of info/interst. (See Monza again)

AB

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 26 2006, 06:22 AM
Bill, I think you completely missed George&#39;s point. I believe what he is saying is that within the cars already classified some were not adjusted due to A) not needing it, or B) not enough info on the car to do so, or C) no one is currently driving one so why waste the time?

If, however, someone shows up in one and can provide the adequate information on it, then it will be considered for going through the formulaic process.

That&#39;s all he&#39;s saying, nothing more.

72239


Thank you Greg. You stated it quite correctly.

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 25 2006, 09:33 PM
210 WHP * 18% loss = 248 crank HP at 2850 BMW = 11.49
181 WHP * 18% loss= 214 crank HP at 2680 RX7 = 12.52
165 WHP * 18% loss= 195 crank HP at 2430 240Z = 12.46
Looks kinda like a pattern here. DJ, I agree that Motec has no business here but for now we have it so our stucture must refect that.

72194


Joe,
I got:
195 rwhp/2850 = 1 : 14.62 BMW With out motec
181 rwhp/2680 = 1 : 14.81 RX7 ?

Hmmmm looks rather close to me.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 26 2006, 10:48 AM
Joe,
I got:
195 rwhp/2850 = 1 : 14.62 BMW With out motec
181 rwhp/2680 = 1 : 14.81 RX7 ?

Hmmmm looks rather close to me.

72280

And what you are doing is taking the PINNACLE (RX-7) from one example and comparing it to an &#39;excellent&#39; example of another (E36).

Run the numbers again using an apples to apples:

195/2850 = 14.62
175/2680 = 15.31

or

210/2850 = 13.57
181/2680 = 14.81

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 26 2006, 08:48 AM
Joe,
I got:
195 rwhp/2850 = 1 : 14.62 BMW With out motec
181 rwhp/2680 = 1 : 14.81 RX7 ?

Hmmmm looks rather close to me.

72280

DJ, I am not real PC most times so excuse me if this comes off wrong. You are not there yet even with out the Motec you have left something on the table. What rings are you runing? What headers are you using? who blueprinted to injector flow rates. Where are your cams running? What RPM are are you swithing the cam curve in the ECU? There are lots of questions I could ask but as I said I don&#39;t believe your package is fully built even short of the Motec. Comparing a fullly built RX7 engine to a partially built Bimmer engine does nothing to balance the class on maximum efforts. Also using RWHP numbers makes you happy but in reality every program out there short of NASA wrks with flywheel numbers. I have seen dyno sheets from a high mileage bimmer engine with a fresh IT prepped head make better power than your stating. Again nothing against your program but I don&#39;t think your comparing apples to apples.

[dj10]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 26 2006, 10:56 AM
And what you are doing is taking the PINNACLE (RX-7) from one example and comparing it to an &#39;excellent&#39; example of another (E36).

Run the numbers again using an apples to apples:

195/2850 = 14.62
175/2680 = 15.31

or

210/2850 = 13.57
181/2680 = 14.81

72281


I tried to take 2 top IT cars without motec.
If you speak of motec then look at the arrc race .01 time difference between Whittel & Huffmaster. So what&#39;s the problem? hehe

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 26 2006, 11:04 AM
I tried to take 2 top IT cars without motec.
If you speak of motec then look at the arrc race .01 time difference between Whittel & Huffmaster. So what&#39;s the problem? hehe

72288


The Huffmaster car qualified on top of Chet in Q1 at the ARRC, yes. Do you know the details? In Q1, he was glued to Chet&#39;s bumper and let him punch a hole for him. Now, in order to keep up with Chet in the E36, the RX-7 would have to be making huge power AND he would have to have been driving the freakin wheels off of it. Congrats to him - no questions asked.

In Q2, when he was not in the draft, he qualified over 1 second off the pace while Chet ran the same time as in Q1. Was he really that much slower when not being towed around the track? Was he trying another setup? Were his tires going away? Why was he 1 second off the pace? Why was almost everyone running the same times Q1 to Q2 except him. We don&#39;t know. He still posted the 2nd fastest time of the session, over 1 second back...

And Chet&#39;s RP, was installed as intended or was it &#39;engineered&#39; out of effectiveness (like any good racer would do given a poorly written rule). Was he restrcted or not...so many variables to take into account when using on-track...which is why it&#39;s so dangerous!


I watched Rob&#39;s race tape from the ARRC race, and I&#39;m not sure that the RX-7 is quite competitive with the BMW... It made me frustrated just watching the tape, Rob would push everything possible out of that 7, only to get to the back straight and watch the BMW pull 5-10 car lengths on him! Lap after Lap after Lap. It was definitely the closest thing I&#39;ve seen to a 7 keeping up with the BMW though, and I think I may just have to give the nod to Rob&#39;s driving for making that happen...

- Joe Moser 2nd ARRC ITA

Now this is data that you may have never considered but it all relates back to taking on-track for what it is worth. There as so many variables that it is impossible to draw 100% conclusions from anything.

All we want to use is the number and let the chips fall where they may...why is this concept so hard to grasp by the front-runners?

[Bill Miller]

If someone comes up with a currently-classed car that has not gone through the same objective re-weighing process that others have, I do not see any problem with them sending a request that says "please run my car through the PCA process; here&#39;s an MVMA and/or VTS for your review."


But there&#39;s the rub Greg, there&#39;s no way to no which cars were run through the process, and didn&#39;t warrant adjustments, and which ones were passed over.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 26 2006, 12:17 PM
But there&#39;s the rub Greg, there&#39;s no way to no which cars were run through the process, and didn&#39;t warrant adjustments, and which ones were passed over.

72312


Exactly!

I can&#39;t believe Bill and I agree on something. His avatar makes more sense everyday. :D

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Bill Miller+Jan 26 2006, 01:17 PM-->
But there&#39;s the rub Greg, there&#39;s no way to no which cars were run through the process, and didn&#39;t warrant adjustments, and which ones were passed over.

72312
[/b]

I thought the exact same thing. But Andy made it pretty clear I think.

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Jan 26 2006, 11:36 AM
OK, let&#39;s assume this for now:

All the cars have been reviewed, and the ones that needed to be adjusted, got adjusted. If you disagree with a situation, write a letter.

95% of the time, we will be sending a "Car is properly classified" response to Fast Track.

Maybe 5% of the cars got overlooked (on-purpose) - for the exact reason in my Monza example above.

Every car got looked at. Some we changed, some we didn&#39;t need to, some we passed on based on lack of info/interst. (See Monza again)

AB

72275


Assume that it has been considered fully. If you think that full consideration would have resulted in a different result - give supporting reasons and evidence, write the letter.

Lacking a list of the ones that were considered and actively decided they are properly classified, rather than lacking information, I am not sure what else someone could do.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 26 2006, 12:17 PM
...there&#39;s no way to no which cars were run through the process...
72312
Yes there is: you ask. - GA

[Joe Harlan]

You guys remind me of the girl I glad I never married. There has not even been time for the ink to dry on this deal and all I am hearing is "what have you done for me lately" Give it a little rest I believe the reasoning and the process has been explained many time in this thread alone.

Matt, if I looked at a 2.2liter daytona I would hesitate moving it to ITB also. I think there is a lot more in that engine package than has been found. I ask the same question. How much work has been done in the way of development? WHo built the engine? Who built the header? Carb or FI and what things have been done there? from your avatar it looks to have OE wheels on it?

[Banzai240]

Guys,

Just for the record... The Supra in question is listed at 200hp stock...

If that&#39;s accurate, then with a 25% increase with IT-prep, it&#39;s HP would be nearly 250hp... The weight, with adders, would come in around 3300lbs...

Since it&#39;s a 3.0L 6-Cylinder, it&#39;s NOT out of reason to imagine these kinds of gains for this motor..... And the torque... well... :blink:

So, when this car was evaluated, since there isn&#39;t a lot of data out there to go by, the process shows that&#39;s it&#39;s actually classified fairly close...

A "Pig", perhaps, but at 200hp stock, it shouldn&#39;t even be in this class... If it were classified at 2850lbs... it&#39;d have been made heavier or been given a restrictor...

So, it&#39;s NOT something that was "missed"... It was something that was evaluated and the decision was made that it&#39;s where it needs to be right now...

Here are some engine specs for this model... Read them, and you&#39;ll understand that this classification isn&#39;t more than 50lbs off of where it needs to be for IT...


The ""7M-GE"" introduced in the late months of 1986 was essentially a 24-valve (4 valves per cylinder) variant of the older ""6M"&#39; engine design. ""&#39;7M engines were fuel injected and DOHC. The valves are spaced at a performance-oriented 50° angle. Cylinder bore was 83 mm (3.27 in) and stroke was 91 mm (3.58 in).

The 7M-GE was produced from 1986 through 1992. Output was 190-204 hp (142-152 kW) at 6000 RPM and 185-196 ft.lbf (250-265 Nm) at 4800 RPM.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Jan 26 2006, 10:37 AM
Guys,

Just for the record... The Supra in question is listed at 200hp stock...

If that&#39;s accurate, then with a 25% increase with IT-prep, it&#39;s HP would be nearly 250hp... The weight, with adders, would come in around 3300lbs...

Since it&#39;s a 3.0L 6-Cylinder, it&#39;s NOT out of reason to imagine these kinds of gains for this motor..... And the torque... well... :blink:

So, when this car was evaluated, since there isn&#39;t a lot of data out there to go by, the process shows that&#39;s it&#39;s actually classified fairly close...

A "Pig", perhaps, but at 200hp stock, it shouldn&#39;t even be in this class... If it were classified at 2850lbs... it&#39;d have been made heavier or been given a restrictor...

So, it&#39;s NOT something that was "missed"... It was something that was evaluated and the decision was made that it&#39;s where it needs to be right now...

Here are some engine specs for this model... Read them, and you&#39;ll understand that this classification isn&#39;t more than 50lbs off of where it needs to be for IT...



72326

Dam it Darin Stop that! Facts on this site take all the fun out of it..... :smilie_pokal:

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 01:29 PM
Lacking a list of the ones that were considered and actively decided they are properly classified, rather than lacking information, I am not sure what else someone could do.

72321

Um... publish the list?

[Bill Miller]

But that&#39;s just it Darin, if it&#39;s ok for the Supra to run @ 3380#, based on its process numbers, why isn&#39;t it ok for the E36 to run @ 3150# (or wherever it would be)? You&#39;ve got one of your associates that feels that tire response goes non-linear when you&#39;ve got cars that heavy, on 7" wide rims. If that&#39;s a valid reason for not giving the E36 lead, then other, similar cars, should get similar consideration.

When you make statements like you just did, in light of the fact that the E36 got an SIR instead of lead, it makes it look like the E36 folks got smiled on again, w/ a wink and a nod. How is it ok for the Supra drivers (are there any?) to have to eat tires and brakes, because they have to run at their process weight, but the E36 guys get to run over 500# lighter, and have their power reduced by an SIR? You know me by now, I&#39;m all about internal consistency. I don&#39;t see any way that these two classifications could be considered internally consistent. This makes it look like the E36 guys get special treatment yet again! :angry:

/edit/

And just for clarification, I never said that the supra couldn&#39;t make that kind of power, and that that weight may not be appropriate. But you can&#39;t look at the car in isolation, you have to look at against how other cars are classified.

Like I said 10 pages ago, they should have just thrown 300# of lead at the BMW and been done with it.

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 26 2006, 05:35 PM
You guys remind me of the girl I glad I never married. "what have you done for me lately"
72325



There are girls who don&#39;t think like that ???

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Jan 26 2006, 01:37 PM
Just for the record... The Supra in question is listed at 200hp stock...


72326

We had one running occasionally out of Waterford. I saw him run 4 or 5 races at Grattan. Won nearly every one IIRC. Broke a lot of hubs. Don&#39;t know what&#39;s up with that car these days.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 12:29 PM
Assume that it has been considered fully. If you think that full consideration would have resulted in a different result - give supporting reasons and evidence, write the letter.


72321

Dang - I hate it when someone writes my own thoughts better than me!

:023:

AB

[Bill Miller]

BTW, here&#39;s the stock specs on an E36 325 M50 engine

is rated at 189 hp @ 5900rpm and 181 lb-ft of torque at 4700.

Looks damn close to me, like those cars would be w/in a 100 or so lbs of each other.

/edit/

Here are some engine specs for this model... Read them, and you&#39;ll understand that this classification isn&#39;t more than 50lbs off of where it needs to be for IT...


I don&#39;t know Darin, I used the 2850#/220hp number from the E36, and got 12.95. Multiply that by the potential 250 hp and you get more like 3240. The &#39;adders&#39; are probably close to what they are for the E36, so I&#39;m guessing that that 12.95 number is pretty good. So, that&#39;s a bit more than 50# off where it should be.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Eagle7@Jan 26 2006, 01:49 PM
Um... publish the list?

72331

I wouldn&#39;t disagree, but I have enough :bash_1_: bruises to not make such an obvious request.

Unfortunately such a broad project of this probably doesn&#39;t have three very clearly defined buckets where all contents of the buckets had the exact same level of consideration A - full with modification to classing B - full with no modification of classing C - none at all with no modification of classing.

Between B & C buckets there is likely a spread out spectrum of cars with very few that would cleanly fall in the B or C bucket with absolute certainty. There could be 15 appropriate buckets between B & C. Realistically it just wouldn&#39;t be feasible to provide such a list without additional discord - it is easier both for the ITAC and I feel the participants to assume it was fully considered as Andy said and then voice disagreement with the result of the process through a letter.

Also while I think these public discussions are helpful and benefit those participating in them - I highly suspect for those who want real concerted consideration of their grievances a letter to the CRB will receive the most attention. I hope the most passionate would take it there unless they are just venting.

[e36its]

Originally posted by Eagle7@Jan 26 2006, 01:49 PM
Um... publish the list?Is this being considered? I appreciate all the ITAC / CRB input I&#39;ve been able to glean off various discussions of this SIR change, but so far it&#39;s involved collecting dropped snippets of information from various places and trying to reverse engineer a formula from that. Weight target information mentioned here, the idea of adders mentioned there, achievable power with legal IT mods mentioned somewhere else.

Would it be a bad idea to release a list with all the formula inputs to the public? It would introduce a level of transparency to the process that might help folks understand the moves that are being made.

tom philip
(yes, I drive one of those: E36 325is)

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 26 2006, 12:50 PM
You&#39;ve got one of your associates that feels that tire response goes non-linear when you&#39;ve got cars that heavy, on 7" wide rims. If that&#39;s a valid reason for not giving the E36 lead, then other, similar cars, should get similar consideration.

That&#39;d be me. Yup. I get iffy on cars weighing that much on the 7"rims, and if I was on the ITAC 10 years ago, when the Supra came up, I would have said the same thing. Of course, there were no SIRs back then....so my recommendation might have been, "Sorry, too much HP). A good candidate for lighter weight and ITR though.




When you make statements like you just did, in light of the fact that the E36 got an SIR instead of lead, it makes it look like the E36 folks got smiled on again, w/ a wink and a nod.

HAR har har! THATS rich! trust me, the E36 guys are NOT thinking that! With ALL the changes, the ONLY guys REALLY moaning and spitting fire, are the E36 guys, who, you think got a gift!

I think that fact is so strange, in and of itself.

If we get a letter from a guy and it&#39;s well documented, and has good supporting info, and it says "You guys missed the XYZ such and such" then we&#39;ll look at it and make a decision.

We have already gotten such a letter, and it was correct. (Although we had cought it already, it just didn&#39;t make the list)

That said, any letters should be reasonable, and well supported.




Like I said 10 pages ago, they should have just thrown 300# of lead at the BMW and been done with it.
72332

LOL, I&#39;m begining to think that might be fun.

;)

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 26 2006, 11:02 AM
DJ, I am not real PC most times so excuse me if this comes off wrong. You are not there yet even with out the Motec you have left something on the table. What rings are you runing? What headers are you using? who blueprinted to injector flow rates. Where are your cams running? What RPM are are you swithing the cam curve in the ECU? There are lots of questions I could ask but as I said I don&#39;t believe your package is fully built even short of the Motec. Comparing a fullly built RX7 engine to a partially built Bimmer engine does nothing to balance the class on maximum efforts. Also using RWHP numbers makes you happy but in reality every program out there short of NASA wrks with flywheel numbers. I have seen dyno sheets from a high mileage bimmer engine with a fresh IT prepped head make better power than your stating. Again nothing against your program but I don&#39;t think your comparing apples to apples.

72287


I know what I know from one of the best engine builders in the country by reputation.
My cams are stock and the timing is stock and legal. That&#39;s where my cams are running. Where else would they be?

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 26 2006, 11:18 AM
The Huffmaster car qualified on top of Chet in Q1 at the ARRC, yes. Do you know the details? ...
With all due respect, Andy you do NOT need to get sucked into that argument because on-track performance is not part of the classification/specification process.

In fact, by letting ourselves get drawn into sounding like we are defending a decision based on qualifying times or race results, particularly from ONE event, we encourage people to engage in presenting the same kind of flawed "data" to support their positions.

We are collectively going to need to say WAY above that fray, if we are going to avoid this good thing turning into competition adjustments (bleah).

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Jan 26 2006, 02:28 PM
With all due respect, Andy you do NOT need to get sucked into that argument because on-track performance is not part of the classification/specification process.

In fact, by letting ourselves get drawn into sounding like we are defending a decision based on qualifying times or race results, particularly from ONE event, we encourage people to engage in presenting the same kind of flawed "data" to support their positions.

We are collectively going to need to say WAY above that fray, if we are going to avoid this good thing turning into competition adjustments (bleah).

K

72360


Captain,

You are 100% correct. I just threw that out there to prove that on-track may or may not be what it seems.

Hopefully, we all know that this is about THE PROCESS and a level foundation from which to move forward. The cream may rise to the top in every class - and so be it. And this class isn&#39;t about guaranteeing competitivness, it&#39;s about a fresh start, using the current processes uniformally applied.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Jan 26 2006, 01:28 PM
With all due respect, Andy you do NOT need to get sucked into that argument because on-track performance is not part of the classification/specification process.

In fact, by letting ourselves get drawn into sounding like we are defending a decision based on qualifying times or race results, particularly from ONE event, we encourage people to engage in presenting the same kind of flawed "data" to support their positions.

We are collectively going to need to say WAY above that fray, if we are going to avoid this good thing turning into competition adjustments (bleah).

K

72360



Yes Kirk, but it IS part of the PCA/weight adjustment/SIR process. :D B)

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 26 2006, 06:09 PM
Yes Kirk, but it IS part of the PCA/weight adjustment/SIR process. :D B)

72393


I disagree Bill, I don&#39;t think it is part of the process, it is just part of the argueing about the process. :)

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 26 2006, 12:07 PM
I know what I know from one of the best engine builders in the country by reputation.
My cams are stock and the timing is stock and legal. That&#39;s where my cams are running. Where else would they be?

72356


DJ, you confirm what I suspected none of the legal work has been done thart would produce the HP numbers that are out there. In 03 I built a T2 350z for a guy I bought 24 injectors from nissan and sent them to my injector guy for matching flowing and making sets out of. That was a net gain of 8 hp. doesn&#39;t seam like alot but in the SS scale of thing its big. your leaving food on the table that others are not leaving.

[buldogge]

Joe... I think he was referring to the cams comment.

The cams are supposed to be at the stock position (legally)...using offset keys/etc. is only legal "to return cams to stock setting" or somesuch.

Are you advocating illegally advancing (or retarding?) cams?

It is also possible to modify the VANOS (again doesn&#39;t apply to me)...are you saying we should be doing this as well???

Seems odd...



Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 26 2006, 11:52 PM
DJ, you confirm what I suspected none of the legal work has been done thart would produce the HP numbers that are out there. In 03 I built a T2 350z for a guy I bought 24 injectors from nissan and sent them to my injector guy for matching flowing and making sets out of. That was a net gain of 8 hp. doesn&#39;t seam like alot but in the SS scale of thing its big. your leaving food on the table that others are not leaving.

72405

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by buldogge@Jan 26 2006, 05:07 PM
Joe... I think he was referring to the cams comment.

The cams are supposed to be at the stock position (legally)...using offset keys/etc. is only legal "to return cams to stock setting" or somesuch.

Are you advocating illegally advancing (or retarding?) cams?

It is also possible to modify the VANOS (again doesn&#39;t apply to me)...are you saying we should be doing this as well???

Seems odd...

72407



I am all about being legal but lets face it if the CRB can&#39;t police stock ECU&#39;s do you think I am silly enough to believe that folks aren&#39;t altering cam timing through the ECU? ANd no I am not specing using offset keys to alter cam timing even though we know its happening. I am saying I have a stack of 240Z cams that are tagged they have all been across the cam doctor to be sure they are legal and to my spec. All others are thrown out. Maximizing th program is how others get to the front. Searching the core piles to find the lighest connecting rod and the best crank ect. is how you find that hard to get HP. But if your not doing it then somebody is beating you with it. Leaving food on the table.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by dickita15@Jan 26 2006, 04:41 PM
I disagree Bill, I don&#39;t think it is part of the process, it is just part of the argueing about the process. :)

72397



I don&#39;t Dick, how do you read this? (emphasis mine)


On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing
performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may
reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or
in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such
an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within
the vehicle’s class.

There&#39;s nothing in there about using SIRs when classing cars. The way I read that, you can ONLY saddle a car w/ a restrictor after reviewing on-track performance.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 26 2006, 10:32 PM
I don&#39;t Dick, how do you read this? (emphasis mine)
There&#39;s nothing in there about using SIRs when classing cars. The way I read that, you can ONLY saddle a car w/ a restrictor after reviewing on-track performance.

72435


Are you talking about newly classed cars? Not existing cars, right?

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 26 2006, 11:32 PM
I don&#39;t Dick, how do you read this? (emphasis mine)
There&#39;s nothing in there about using SIRs when classing cars. The way I read that, you can ONLY saddle a car w/ a restrictor after reviewing on-track performance.

72435

Bill, very good point. Maybe I am naïve but from what the ITAC members have said publicly I would like to think that the on track performance can trigger the revaluation of a car but not in the actual results of that review.

But again maybe I am naïve, and you make a great point.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by dickita15@Jan 27 2006, 06:06 AM
Bill, very good point. Maybe I am naïve but from what the ITAC members have said publicly I would like to think that the on track performance can trigger the revaluation of a car but not in the actual results of that review.

But again maybe I am naïve, and you make a great point.

72457



That&#39;s just it Dick. I didn&#39;t write the rule, but it clearly states that the ONLY way that cars may be adjusted, once the 4-year &#39;post classification period has expired&#39;, either through a change in the spec weight or through the requirement of an intake restrictor, is after the review of the on-track performance.



And this class isn&#39;t about guaranteeing competitivness, it&#39;s about a fresh start, using the current processes uniformally applied.


And there&#39;s the problem w/ that Andy, the process wasn&#39;t uniformlly applied. You&#39;ve got two cars, w/ very similar stock hp and torque numbers (E36 and gen. 3 Supra). One is very popular (E36), but is spec&#39;d ~300# under where it should be, according to the process. The other is hardly ever seen on the track, and appears to be spec&#39;d high, based on the target #/hp ratio used for the E36.

People have said that tire response goes non-linear at the weight the E36 should be at, per the process, yet the Supra is 200+# North of that. People have also said that they didn&#39;t want to make E36 guys add that much lead, or have to go find stock stuff to put back in. Others have said that because it has raced @2850#, it should stay there.

I&#39;m sorry Andy, but when you have two very similar cars, and one gets to run 500# lighter, w/ a restrictor, which clearly gives it an edge in both tire and brake wear, not to mention overall handling, that the process has not been &#39;uniformally&#39; applied.


/edit/ italics

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 27 2006, 08:20 AM

I&#39;m sorry Andy, but when you have two very similar cars, and one gets to run 500# lighter, w/ a restrictor, which clearly gives it an edge in both tire and brake wear, not to mention overall handling, that the process has been &#39;uniformally&#39; applied.

72463

Bill,

I respect your fundamental standpoint. I can only point to the CRB&#39;s reasoning. The BMW guys think they are getting crusified, the non-BMW guys think the BMW guys got away with another one.

Weight. It&#39;s the new iPod. Everyone has to have it.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 27 2006, 07:43 AM
Bill,

I respect your fundamental standpoint. I can only point to the CRB&#39;s reasoning. The BMW guys think they are getting crusified, the non-BMW guys think the BMW guys got away with another one.

Weight. It&#39;s the new iPod. Everyone has to have it.

AB

72466


Thanks Andy, that&#39;s all I can ask. And of course the BMW guys say they&#39;re getting screwed. They&#39;re just like the politicians here in NJ, they&#39;ve got a good thing going, and they don&#39;t want anybody messing w/ it.

[turboICE]

No one is bad enough to deserve that comparison!

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 26 2006, 06:52 PM
DJ, you confirm what I suspected none of the legal work has been done thart would produce the HP numbers that are out there. In 03 I built a T2 350z for a guy I bought 24 injectors from nissan and sent them to my injector guy for matching flowing and making sets out of. That was a net gain of 8 hp. doesn&#39;t seam like alot but in the SS scale of thing its big. your leaving food on the table that others are not leaving.

72405



Joe, I do need mine done, who do you recommend for this? Any one on the East side?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 27 2006, 09:18 AM
Joe, I do need mine done, who do you recommend for this? Any one on the East side?

72496

RC engineering in Cali.. RC engineering (http://www.rceng.com/)
Russ is a god when it comes to injector technology

[Bill Miller]

IIRC, there&#39;s Marren Motorsports in Ct. as well. I think they advertise in the back of SportsCar.

[mlytle]

this coming from an e36 guy..

sir&#39;s seem like they are good. i have said that since the first post in the first thread where they were suggested months ago.

lead bad. i have said that consistenly too. more abuse of components, more fargin weight to trailer around at 8mpg...;-)

why would i object to sir&#39;s?
1/ they should be applied to EVERY its car, not just bmw&#39;s. they are advantageous to everyone to cap cheating and keep the hp/weight ratios near target.

2/ they are way more expensive than i thought they would be. not just the $400 part, but all the install issues and engine tuning, again. if everyone was getting them and it had been tested, ok. but just one car type as another experiment? ouch.

3/ there was no testing done in an actual its car to see if they perform to the theoretical ability given the fact that its rules preclude many of the mounting and airbox options that are available in other open classes that use them. i am looking at the dimensions of the sir and looking at the small area on an e36 behind the headlight to put it, plumbing and an air filter and shaking my head.

4/ the implementation timeline is unacceptable. this is a pretty big development and install curve. two weeks is a joke. this should have been notice that they would be required starting 01jan07.

and to andy and george - you guys were unjustly abused on the bmw forum...you tried valiantly to get the point across, but several folks were not listening, and they weren&#39;t its drivers.

marshall

[dj10]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 27 2006, 01:25 PM
this coming from an e36 guy..

sir&#39;s seem like they are good. i have said that since the first post in the first thread where they were suggested months ago.

lead bad. i have said that consistenly too. more abuse of components, more fargin weight to trailer around at 8mpg...;-)

why would i object to sir&#39;s?
1/ they should be applied to EVERY its car, not just bmw&#39;s. they are advantageous to everyone to cap cheating and keep the hp/weight ratios near target.

2/ they are way more expensive than i thought they would be. not just the $400 part, but all the install issues and engine tuning, again. if everyone was getting them and it had been tested, ok. but just one car type as another experiment? ouch.

3/ there was no testing done in an actual its car to see if they perform to the theoretical ability given the fact that its rules preclude many of the mounting and airbox options that are available in other open classes that use them. i am looking at the dimensions of the sir and looking at the small area on an e36 behind the headlight to put it, plumbing and an air filter and shaking my head.

4/ the implementation timeline is unacceptable. this is a pretty big development and install curve. two weeks is a joke. this should have been notice that they would be required starting 01jan07.

and to andy and george - you guys were unjustly abused on the bmw forum...you tried valiantly to get the point across, but several folks were not listening, and they weren&#39;t its drivers.

marshall

72512


I would listen to this guy, unless you want your State sunk! :D

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 27 2006, 06:25 PM
2/ they are way more expensive than i thought they would be. not just the $400 part, but all the install issues and engine tuning, again. if everyone was getting them and it had been tested, ok. but just one car type as another experiment? ouch.

3/ there was no testing done in an actual its car to see if they perform to the theoretical ability given the fact that its rules preclude many of the mounting and airbox options that are available in other open classes that use them. i am looking at the dimensions of the sir and looking at the small area on an e36 behind the headlight to put it, plumbing and an air filter and shaking my head.


72512


Marshal,

Thanks for your rational and well thought out input...

Just a couple items worth noting...

The tuning issue... According to those who have run these on Dynos, as well as raced with them... NO additional tuning was required... No jets had to be changed... No FI adjusted... Nothing... the car ran exactly the same right up to the stall point... Then it just quites making HP...

Second, and I suppose this is also related to the first... these have been tested for over a year on a variety of cars... Talk to Bob Dowie for more information...

I&#39;m sorry for the frustration this has caused, but I think it will be worth it in the long run for the good of the class... I have already heard of at least two new ITS cars on the way in our area because of this adjustment alone... People actually feel as though there is a chance now...

[lateapex911]

Marshall,

I agree ans feel bad for the timing. We discussed this at length, time and again, over the summer, and into the fall. Obviously, this was not an easy move, and it was given it&#39;s share of attention...if not more. The packege went off the the CRB, and then there were some additions and alterations. After the CRB discussed it, it needed BoD approval. At least that&#39;s the way I understand the timing. Obviously, the CRB and the BoD have much on their plate, and honestly, this is just one part of a very large change for IT. To the CRBs credit, they too gave it some serious consideration and attention. Unfortunatley, the gears turned a bit nore slowly than I would like, or the clock sped up when nobody was looking, LOL.

I truly wish that it had been released sooner, but it is what it is, your point is very valid, and it won&#39;t go unrecorded.

On the cheating aspect-
An SIR can&#39;t stop cheating. I would be foolish to write instructions, but trust me, there are ways around it. And just like an unrestricted engine will respond to certain tweaks and cheatsa, so will an SIR equipped engine. It will remove the tempation to go after big top end power though, so while it can&#39;t prevent cheating, it can help reduce the effectiveness. But if there are ways to boost power under the curve that are illegal, there is nothing (other than you and me) to stop someone who has bad values.

So, the SIR is a benefit in the cheating department, but not a full blown solution.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Jan 27 2006, 10:13 PM
So, the SIR is a benefit in the cheating department, but not a full blown solution.

72531


"Only you can prevent....."... Well... not forest fires, but you get the idea! ;)

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Jan 27 2006, 02:03 PM

Second, and I suppose this is also related to the first... these have been tested for over a year on a variety of cars... Talk to Bob Dowie for more information...


72515


but were they tested on an its e36? at least for practical install? to confirm the theoretical output on an its car? sorrry, i don&#39;t know who bob dowie is.

there still seems to be some confusion on the output of a 27mm sir. an engine builder i am speaking with called raetech today and was told 27mm is good for 180-190hp. reconfirming wheel or crank. i would think raetch would quote crank, but...

[mlytle]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 27 2006, 01:34 PM
I would listen to this guy, unless you want your State sunk! :D

72514


any tracks near the ocean? i gotta have jurisdiction! B)