A word from the CRB on the recent changes...

[lateapex911]

I'm posting this on behalf of Bob Dowie, last years ITAC CRB liasion, and current GT Ad hoc liasion and CRB member. As the SIR technology is new to us, he thought this explanation and listing of sources might be helpful and useful.

I would like to point out that this is the first time that I am aware of that the CRB has posted such a response to the IT community, and I'd like to thank Bob and the CRB for their efforts and the open channel of communication.



Regarding the BMW E36, the CRB chose to institute use of the SIR restrictor instead of increased weight because the car was already listed and competing at the current weight. The committee target weight would have had the competitors locating and installing legally removed stock components or adding a great deal of ballast. Neither were felt to be are good options.



An SIR is an optimized (in other words, the shape is designed to pass as much air as theoretically possible) opening through which all intake air must pass. It is the entry point for all air entering the intake tract. Instead of being a flat plate, it is more like a funnel, and is designd to have no affect on the engine, or it's characteristics until it's design limits are reached. The goal is to trim the top of the HP curve, but not affect any other part of it. Typically SIRs are smaller than flat plate restrictors in equal applications, but are more transparent during operation.




The CRB and the GT committee have been working on the single inlet restrictor system for the last few years. Certainly not a new idea as its been in use around the world for years, but not within the SCCA. There are many benefits; the same type of restrictor is equally effective regardless of the intake system used. Determining what actual cars are capable of making in the real world is subject to rumour and innuendo, and sources are often conflicting. So, the biggest benefit by far is the fact we have some idea of the power output of an engine equipped with an SIR. Flat plates are based on a percentage of the stock throttle plate size, what we don’t know is if the stock throttle body is oversize to start with in the particular car that is being adjusted. It’s a nasty catch 22, and one that leads us to set a restriction and keep going down in size until the performance goal is met. Which is difficult in other categories, but even more so in IT where on track performance isn’t utilized in the same way it is in other categories for classification decisions. The result is often unhappy competitors who feel targeted, and must re-engineer their cars, and suffer the expenses with every “adjustment”.



Thanks to David Finch and his associates at Raetech engineering www.raetech.com we have a solid picture for what the output potential is for an engine equipped with a single inlet restrictor (SIR). Raetech donated hours of engineering expertise and computer modeling time to establish what we can expect from a given restrictor size. In the testing done so far the modeling appears to be accurate. Raetech followed it one step further by making an optimized restrictor available. But they are not a spec part and competitors are welcome to make their own or choose from the other machine shops making them.

The design spec of the 27mm size is to limit crank horspower to 218-220.



cdamachine (http://www.cdamachine.com) SIR info on website

.racegearbox (http://www.racegearbox.com) Call for info

raetech (http://www.raetech.com) SIR info on site



We don’t see this as an experiment that’s being put on the BMW owners back. We had a GT3 Nissan running at this years runoffs equipped with one as well as a couple of GTL cars; with all the restricted GTL cars using them this season. It is the direction we are heading in restricting engines through out the categories; yes its new technology for us, but the SCCA has been observing the implementation by other sanctioning bodies and feels confident in the devices effect.. And like any thing new it will take time and require some effort as it’s implemented but we firmly believe in the system and its ability to restrict power to known level allowing us to bring in new cars without displacing the old. We certainly intend this to be the last change given the current class structure.



No committee or board in the SCCA likes to make competitors change their cars. But if changes are necessary they have a responsibility to make the hard decisions. This is one of these times.



Bob Dowie, CRB member, 2005 ITAC liasion, 2006 GT liasion.

Here's a computer model:

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

I really appreciate Bob taking time to put that together for us. However, I have an issue w/ the first paragraph. What's the cutoff point, where you get an SIR in lieu of lead? When the 2.0 16v VWs went from ITS to ITA, they got ~250# of lead. That's about what was being bandied about for the E36. Nobody seemed overly concerned w/ throwing 250# at the VWs, yet now it's not a 'good option'?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 23 2006, 07:45 PM
Jake,

I really appreciate Bob taking time to put that together for us. However, I have an issue w/ the first paragraph. What's the cutoff point, where you get an SIR in lieu of lead? When the 2.0 16v VWs went from ITS to ITA, they got ~250# of lead. That's about what was being bandied about for the E36. Nobody seemed overly concerned w/ throwing 250# at the VWs, yet now it's not a 'good option'?

71804

So what? does the 250lbs put the VW over 3000lbs? careful what you wish for Bill cause I would have looked hard at an SIR. The other question I would pose is were the VW's making weight in ITS? maybe it was determined they couldn't so the 250 is not really 250.

Thanks Bob for rappin with us.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 23 2006, 09:02 PM
So what? does the 250lbs put the VW over 3000lbs? careful what you wish for Bill cause I would have looked hard at an SIR. The other question I would pose is were the VW's making weight in ITS? maybe it was determined they couldn't so the 250 is not really 250.

Thanks Bob for rappin with us.

71810



Joe, I don't want to get in an arguement w/ you over this, but the things you listed are red herrings. The E46 323 is already at 3000#, and the Supra is well North of it. And yes, you can get an A2 Golf to 2220# Besides, AFAIK, there's nothing in the process that takes into account if a car can get to its spec weight or not. In fact, IIRC, the only time this has come up, is in the case of the New Beetle, where it was felt that the car couldn't get to it's ITB weight. However, Jake has said that some of the cars on the recent list of cars that were adjusted, probably won't be able to make that new weight.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 23 2006, 08:15 PM
Joe, I don't want to get in an arguement w/ you over this, but the things you listed are red herrings. The E46 323 is already at 3000#, and the Supra is well North of it. And yes, you can get an A2 Golf to 2220# Besides, AFAIK, there's nothing in the process that takes into account if a car can get to its spec weight or not. In fact, IIRC, the only time this has come up, is in the case of the New Beetle, where it was felt that the car couldn't get to it's ITB weight. However, Jake has said that some of the cars on the recent list of cars that were adjusted, probably won't be able to make that new weight.

71814

And Bill I think it has been stated that the ITAC asked for weight both times the E36 has been adjusted. This is a new deal and the great thing is if it truely works as good as I believe it will we may be able to off the E46 and Supra an alternate weight with an SIR. wouldn't that be cool if the crs actually got built because they weren't pigs? I guess you just twist me a little cause you want to shoot holes in anything new rather than actually investing a little research and a little faith into it.
There is a good group of people at the wheel here and other than a few poorly worded rules in the PCS (intent good wording poor) they have done some really good things.

I guess my point is I am not arguing that a 3300lb car is not safe I am arguing that with this technology we cauld have some good car classes and reclassed at a weight that would make them more fun and more in line with the cars around them.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 23 2006, 09:29 PM
And Bill I think it has been stated that the ITAC asked for weight both times the E36 has been adjusted. This is a new deal and the great thing is if it truely works as good as I believe it will we may be able to off the E46 and Supra an alternate weight with an SIR. wouldn't that be cool if the crs actually got built because they weren't pigs? I guess you just twist me a little cause you want to shoot holes in anything new rather than actually investing a little research and a little faith into it.
There is a good group of people at the wheel here and other than a few poorly worded rules in the PCS (intent good wording poor) they have done some really good things.

I guess my point is I am not arguing that a 3300lb car is not safe I am arguing that with this technology we cauld have some good car classes and reclassed at a weight that would make them more fun and more in line with the cars around them.

71819



Joe,

That's not true, nor is it fair. Look back, I've applauded the work that Darin, et. al. have done, many times in the last several months, as well as in light of the recent changes. You should know me well enough by now, I'm all about internal consistency. It tends to eliminate surprises, and certainly takes away opportunities for people to cry foul.

It's no secret that you're a big fan of SIR technology. I agree, it's pretty slick stuff, and certainly has a place in Club Racing. However, given the success of the previous restrictor plate (and yes, I know, it's not the same), I would have thought that the CRB may have taken a 'less risky' option. I still can't help but thinking that the CRB is hoping to use this as an opportunity to validate their decision to use SIR technology in GT.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 23 2006, 08:42 PM
Joe,

That's not true, nor is it fair. Look back, I've applauded the work that Darin, et. al. have done, many times in the last several months, as well as in light of the recent changes. You should know me well enough by now, I'm all about internal consistency. It tends to eliminate surprises, and certainly takes away opportunities for people to cry foul.

It's no secret that you're a big fan of SIR technology. I agree, it's pretty slick stuff, and certainly has a place in Club Racing. However, given the success of the previous restrictor plate (and yes, I know, it's not the same), I would have thought that the CRB may have taken a 'less risky' option. I still can't help but thinking that the CRB is hoping to use this as an opportunity to validate their decision to use SIR technology in GT.
71824

Well Bill it may not be true or fair but step back and read how negative that last line comes off. I don't believe there is any desire to validate soemthing that is already in play. The GTL guys are fully in development mode on this deal and the results are as stated in most cases. It's all about air and when you can't get anymore you can't make anymore power.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 24 2006, 03:15 AM
Besides, AFAIK, there's nothing in the process that takes into account if a car can get to its spec weight or not.

71814


Actually, it's one of the first things looked at once a baseline weight is determined...

And, for the record, I happen to believe that most of the cars adjusted will be able to find legal ways to make weight, or get really close to it...

No way we've got them ALL correct, but I think we got most of them...

[lateapex911]

Bill, some general thoughts...

Yeah, I said some cars might have issues getting the last pounds off. Dieting is tough! But we think most cars can get close...very close, and it will help the overall class structure, even if they can't hit the last 5 pounds.

Remember, the whole PCA thing isn't about nailing the class on a pinhead. IT has too many cars, and the original philosophy is still in effect in many degrees. Maybe it would be better to say that "there is no guarantee of competiveness, but we will try really hard, within reason". OK, thats overly loose and general, but still an improvement from the original, LOL.

The VW got it's weight changed because it changed classes. IF the BMW changed classes, it woulf change weight too..like maybe losing weight if an uber class were to be created.

But...it runs at 2850, and has for awhile now.

[ITAC hat mode OFF]
We sent the E36 to the CRB with the option of weight, or the SIR. I liked the SIR option for a lot of reasons, some not really valid, technically!
1-We don't have to argue about what the car REALLY can make for HP. Which makes setting weight tough, if you can't pin down the real number.
2-It is cheaper in the long run than weight.
3-I don't like the idea of cars running (racing) on 7" rims and weight over 3000lbs. Maybe it's me, but I think it's getting into non linear tire responses, and so on. At some point, 100 pounds more is more like 150, if you know what I mean.
4- It's IT...I think tacking on yet MORE weight would be ball busting, esp to the guys who are ramping up their programs. Hey...a guy who's not at the front yet, sure won't be if he adds 200+ pounds! I know this might seem like a gimmie, but personally I see no harm in doing that where it's possible. Yeah, we could put SIRs on every car , but lets be real.
5- Its a really tamper proof technology. (Short of out and out blatant cheating, which can hapen in any configuration) The flat plate restrictor can be ineffective in ..errr....certain cars. I think the chances of revisiting this are much less likely than another round of flat plate restriction.


I see what you're saying on the weight, but I think it was the combination of a car already running the weight, the excessive amount needed and the CRBs confidence in the the SIR as the simplest solution for all parties to a rather sticky problem.

Personally, I think it's a great solution, and I feel it is totally in keeping with the IT philosophy, although it differs in a nuts and bolts way, it matches in others.

{Ok, ITAC mode back ON]

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

I knew that! :D

Joe,

SIRs may already be 'in play', but I don't think everybody is on board w/ how wonderful they are. It's my understanding that the debate on the GT site went back and forth on this one, and that there are still plenty of people that think it's a BS idea. So yes, it's 'in play', but it's hardly a known qunatity, in Club Racing. So you'll excuse me if I'm not convinced that there aren't some alterior (sp?) motives 'in play'. Especially when you look at it in light of the PCA rule (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.

Jake,


it is known that the allowable weights may be impossible to acheive on certain cars.


some cars might have issues getting the last pounds off

I think you would agree that the tone of those two statements is significantly different. Anybody that runs w/in 25# of their spec weight, is playing w/ fire, when it comes to how accurate the scales will be. I don't think anybody would worry if they couldn't get that last 5 lbs off.

And what should it matter if a car changed classes, or was found to be light, per the process? If raising the weight of the car by 10% is too much, it's too much, period.

I can buy the non-linear tire response issue, to a point. But that arguement doesn't have much credibility when you have cars that were recently classed at 3000# (E46 323), and cars that are well North of that (Supra @ 3380#). And if 3000# is the 'cutoff' for 7" wheels, what's the cutoff for 6" wheels? You've got the Volvos in ITB at just shy of 2800# on 6" wheels.


I think tacking on yet MORE weight would be ball busting, esp to the guys who are ramping up their programs

"MORE" weight? That would imply that already got an increase in weight. And really, you worry about underdeveloped cars when you make these decisions? "Hey, these guys are ramping up, we can't slow them down." WTF???

And I'm glad that you think it's ok for some cars to get 'gimmes'.

I'll be happy to debate the use of an SIR over lead, but don't piss in my ear and tell me that it's raining.

[lateapex911]

Geez Bill, bad nights sleep?

Remember, those comments were my opinion....

But a point or two. "MORE" weight...as in to imply a potentially significant amount. (Although the weight on that car does have a rocky history) Again, MY opinion is that I think IT is a great place to play, and I think that the SIR is a good solution for the problem THAT car presents in THAT class at THIS point in history.

Remeber going in here that there was considerable disagreement that there was even a REAL problem, at least among the E36 owners, many of whom denied that the car was as capable as it was said to be. Sure...vested interest and all that. But they also said it was just a couple cars with the problem. Well, I think the SIR renders that argument irrelevant. The guys who weren't exceeeding the envelope still won't be, and the guys that were should now fit the process. Personally, I like that solution to THIS particular situation. Remember, we're talking about a car thats numbers are too fast for the process in the categories fastest class...it's a unique situation.

It is MY feeling that it hits the criteria described in the PCA definition.

Can't tell you about the Supra...before my time. (I would suggest it is a good candidate for an ITR class, however...as I said, I personally get uncomfortable having cars running at that weight...to ME it's uncharted territory. Maybe there is data on it that I'm just not aware of though...)

OK, thats all opinion..

Here's two facts-

1- There are no "Alterior" motives at play here. Period.
2- I know the difference of a urinal and an ear, please lets drop that analogy and commentary!

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

SIRs may already be 'in play', but I don't think everybody is on board w/ how wonderful they are. It's my understanding that the debate on the GT site went back and forth on this one, and that there are still plenty of people that think it's a BS idea. So yes, it's 'in play', but it's hardly a known qunatity, in Club Racing. So you'll excuse me if I'm not convinced that there aren't some alterior (sp?) motives 'in play'. Especially when you look at it in light of the PCA rule (emphasis mine)

Bill, like all things SCCA the GT guys have fought and bitched cause nobody want to have their own program touched. Hell I would bitch if an SIR was thrown at the 240SX 4 valve unless it was to move it to ITA. My issue is that along ith cars sometimes philosopy has to have a little adjustment to reflect thte times and available technology. The other issue in GT is trying to make SIR's work with sidedraft carbs and building airtight boxes. in This case we do not have that issue. I have to say any car that could be classed into ITS that I can think of wouldn't have an issue.

The Craftsman truck series will be using similar technolgy at Daytona this year. They are running a 1" thick engineered taper restrictor. From everything I have read so far this has the same effect as the SIR. Very little to no effect on drivability but knocks 40hp off the top of the truck motor. The great part for them was they didn't loose the ability to race and they didn't have to invest in a complete restrictor plate engine program. Now I know you all don't care about NASCAR but the fact is this is another good indicator of what the SIR program can be. You can bet your but that if the good ole boys thought they could find more out of theswe engines by starting another program they would be doing it.

The SIR will still require a fully developed and driven car Bill. The only real change I see is a person will likely be able to not buy that Motec as the benefit will likely not be there. But If they do buy the Motec to optimize their package the gains will be limited to the amount of air the SIR will provide the engine.

So in the end you need to look at it this way, it's a new day and another new opportunity for IT to gain new cars new drivers and as a community show we are not afraid of the future.

PS Bill I do have an alterior motive. It's called racing. I believe in this technology enough I believe it can fix alot of tweeners in every class we have from SS to GT and once the SIR is in place it is very little work to adjust the bore size to get it just right. Imagine being able to classify a car and have it be competitive in 2 years rather than the current 5 year plan we use now.

I am not asking you to believe me. I am asking you to do some research beside the GT forums on the subject and give it at least a little bit of a chance.

[Bill Miller]

Actually slept pretty well Jake. And I realize those are your opinions, that's why I addressed the comment to you. We can agree to disagree about the appropriatness of the SIR in the case of the E36 (see my comment in the other thread). As far as the 'disagreement' about there being a problem, the ONLY people that felt that there wasn't a problem, were the folks that ran those cars. Saying that they might have been biased is putting it mildly. And the 'couple of cars w/ the problem', were the ones that spent the time and money that it takes to develop a car to the limit.

And that's a pretty bold statement to make, that there are no alterior motives. Unless of course your are part of the final decision making process, I submit that what you have stated as a fact, is really your opinion.

And while you may know the difference between a urinal and an ear, do you know the difference between piss and rain? :P :bash_1_: :D

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 24 2006, 09:30 AM
The other issue in GT is trying to make SIR's work with sidedraft carbs and building airtight boxes. in This case we do not have that issue. I have to say any car that could be classed into ITS that I can think of wouldn't have an issue.

Maybe I'm not understanding how the SIR is going to be implemented w/ the E36. Don't you still have to fabricate some type of airtight box for it, even w/ a FI system?





The SIR will still require a fully developed and driven car Bill. The only real change I see is a person will likely be able to not buy that Motec as the benefit will likely not be there. But If they do buy the Motec to optimize their package the gains will be limited to the amount of air the SIR will provide the engine.


Other people seem to disagree w/ you Joe. And if you don't need the MoTec, you don't need to fully develop the car. Ask Andy, Jake, Darin, or any of the other ITAC folks, they've pointed to some of those E36 cars w/o MoTec, and labled them as not fully developed.

PS Bill I do have an alterior motive. It's called racing. I believe in this technology enough I believe it can fix alot of tweeners in every class we have from SS to GT and once the SIR is in place it is very little work to adjust the bore size to get it just right. Imagine being able to classify a car and have it be competitive in 2 years rather than the current 5 year plan we use now.

That's great Joe, but the way I read the PCA section of the ITCS, that's not the way adjustments will be implemented. For newly classified cars, they'll adjust weight, and after the 4th year, it will be set. Restrictors only come into play based on a review of 'actual racing performance' (the way I read that, it means results BLEH!).

The other thing I'm a bit confused on, is that there seems to be some pretty open interpretations on design and location of the SIR. From the GTCS


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

Can you put it before the throttle body? after? before the AFM? after? What kinds of mods are you allowed to make to install it? What are you allowed to relocate to facilitate the installation? How do you define 'minor disassembly'?

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a lot that's left wide open w/ this one.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 24 2006, 09:24 AM
Maybe I'm not understanding how the SIR is going to be implemented w/ the E36. Don't you still have to fabricate some type of airtight box for it, even w/ a FI system?
Other people seem to disagree w/ you Joe. And if you don't need the MoTec, you don't need to fully develop the car. Ask Andy, Jake, Darin, or any of the other ITAC folks, they've pointed to some of those E36 cars w/o MoTec, and labled them as not fully developed.

That's great Joe, but the way I read the PCA section of the ITCS, that's not the way adjustments will be implemented. For newly classified cars, they'll adjust weight, and after the 4th year, it will be set. Restrictors only come into play based on a review of 'actual racing performance' (the way I read that, it means results BLEH!).

The other thing I'm a bit confused on, is that there seems to be some pretty open interpretations on design and location of the SIR. From the GTCS
Can you put it before the throttle body? after? before the AFM? after? What kinds of mods are you allowed to make to install it? What are you allowed to relocate to facilitate the installation? How do you define 'minor disassembly'?

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a lot that's left wide open w/ this one.

71876


Ok Bill, I am done with this until you do some of your own research. Picking the corn out of the deal wastes my time and ends up being very frustrating. The will be no need to build a box because the E36 has an intake plenum and a single throttle body. The SIR will go in the intake line where ever the person ants to put it as long as all the engine intake air passes through it it will meet the kill test. Attached is a photo of an actuall raetech part. I hopoe this will make it clearer. I also disagree that a new classification should not be considered for a SIR if the performance model would indicate that HP is the only limiting factor.. I would say look at the Z32 300zx as an example. The only thing keeping that car out of ITS is the potentiol to make HP beyond the performance window.
http://www.raetech.com/Motorsports/Restrictors/SIR_Hose_Inlet.GIF
http://www.raetech.com/Motorsports/Restrictors/SIR_Bell_Inlet.GIF

PS. the reason I like the raetech unit is it is fully engineered and equally machined. It also has a replacable restrictor section so rather than spending the full amount on a new if adjustments are needed you can by that section for about a third of the full cost. I know the GT site has some engineering drawings on it but the out side diameter is 3 inchs so using it in conjunction with a cold air intake should be pretty easy stuff.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 24 2006, 11:25 AM
Ok Bill, I am done with this until you do some of your own research. Picking the corn out of the deal wastes my time and ends up being very frustrating. The will be no need to build a box because the E36 has an intake plenum and a single throttle body. The SIR will go in the intake line where ever the person ants to put it as long as all the engine intake air passes through it it will meet the kill test. Attached is a photo of an actuall raetech part. I hopoe this will make it clearer. I also disagree that a new classification should not be considered for a SIR if the performance model would indicate that HP is the only limiting factor.. I would say look at the Z32 300zx as an example. The only thing keeping that car out of ITS is the potentiol to make HP beyond the performance window.
http://www.raetech.com/Motorsports/Restrictors/SIR_Hose_Inlet.GIF
http://www.raetech.com/Motorsports/Restrictors/SIR_Bell_Inlet.GIF

71900



Joe,

I've got no problem w/ including SIRs as part of the initial performance control on a car. It's just that that's not the way the rules are currently written.

While that Raetech part is nice, there's nothing that I saw in the rules that said you have to use their part (and let's not even go down that road!). And while I think it's great that David Finch and his company donated a bunch of time and effort towards the development of SIR technology, I'm not naive enough to think it was a totally altruistic gesture.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 24 2006, 10:34 AM
Joe,

I've got no problem w/ including SIRs as part of the initial performance control on a car. It's just that that's not the way the rules are currently written.

While that Raetech part is nice, there's nothing that I saw in the rules that said you have to use their part (and let's not even go down that road!). And while I think it's great that David Finch and his company donated a bunch of time and effort towards the development of SIR technology, I'm not naive enough to think it was a totally altruistic gesture.

71905



While I may agree or disagree with the last part I will say this. If I were building another car that would have the need for this It would be one that was fully engineered like this one. My belief is you won't make one flow better and be legal but I think like porting you could possibly make one worse. ;)

More size stuff courtesy of raetech..http://www.raetech.com/Motorsports/Restrictors/Hose%20Style%20Installation%20Drawing%20small.PNG

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 24 2006, 12:39 PM
While I may agree or disagree with the last part I will say this. If I were building another car that would have the need for this It would be one that was fully engineered like this one. My belief is you won't make one flow better and be legal but I think like porting you could possibly make one worse. ;)

More size stuff courtesy of raetech..http://www.raetech.com/Motorsports/Restrictors/Hose%20Style%20Installation%20Drawing%20small.PNG

71908



The only damn thing you are doing is making us spend more MONEY AND GIVING THE PEOPLE WITH MOTEC'S A BIGGER ADVANTAGE!! Lets see how mich did I spend on a restrictor plate.......PLUS ANOTHER $400.00 for a SIR, more $ for more dyno time & new chips!, next thing, I'll have to have a HANS thats another $800.00!
Enough is enough! NASA is looking better and better

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 24 2006, 02:07 PM
The only damn thing you are doing is making us spend more MONEY AND GIVING THE PEOPLE WITH MOTEC'S A BIGGER ADVANTAGE!! Lets see how mich did I spend on a restrictor plate.......PLUS ANOTHER $400.00 for a SIR, more $ for more dyno time & new chips!, next thing, I'll have to have a HANS thats another $800.00!
Enough is enough! NASA is looking better and better

71939


DJ, your argument does not hold water....explain how the Motec gets a bigger advantage and please no BS, data only..I have been sharing real world info please do the same.

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 24 2006, 09:07 PM
The only damn thing you are doing is making us spend more MONEY AND GIVING THE PEOPLE WITH MOTEC'S A BIGGER ADVANTAGE!! Lets see how mich did I spend on a restrictor plate.......PLUS ANOTHER $400.00 for a SIR, more $ for more dyno time & new chips!, next thing, I'll have to have a HANS thats another $800.00!
Enough is enough! NASA is looking better and better

71939



If you're that upset then go BMWCCA racing- no biggy. But your still going to need the HANS as it's mandated now. You have other options that's the beauty of a BMW or Porsche or Honda.

But before you go you should try to look at this with an open mind- it is a gift given all the possible outcomes.

And, I'd be SHOCKED if your area under the curve changed much, if at all, with the SIR, so all sorts of added dyno time is a moot point. Its only going to restrict upper RPM hp. How much time do you spend at 6700 or more?

R

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 24 2006, 04:12 PM
DJ, your argument does not hold water....explain how the Motec gets a bigger advantage and please no BS, data only..I have been sharing real world info please do the same.

71940


I've seen motec's that are PROGRAMABLE every 100 rpm throughout the entire rpm range.
To me this is just common sense. Talk to an engineer I bet he concurs. You never addressed the money issue, or doesn't that matter?

[Doc Bro]

[quote]
You never addressed the money issue, or doesn't that matter?

71945

I'll field that one. How many more heat cycles will you get on Hoosiers carrying around 300 less pounds per lap? How about brakes? How about race fuel at 6.00 per gallon? That was your alternative- going up 300 lbs. Besides, I race a BMW....you tell ME what 400 bucks gets you for the marque.....not much.

The old addage applies....you can pay me now... or pay me later!

R

[snk328is]

$400 will almost buy me a new set of tires for the whole season.

I race on Toyo RA-1's. I use Cobalt Spec VR's which lasts and lasts and lasts.

I spent less than $3.00/gallon on premium 93 octane fuel.

You seem to be implying that all BMW racers have money growing trees in their backyards.

You tell ME what $400 will get for any racer of any marque that is determined to win at all costs? BMW or not, the answer is not much. But for the budget racer, it can get oh so much.


Originally posted by Doc Bro@Jan 24 2006, 04:44 PM
I'll field that one. How many more heat cycles will you get on Hoosiers carrying around 300 less pounds per lap? How about brakes? How about race fuel at 6.00 per gallon? That was your alternative- going up 300 lbs. Besides, I race a BMW....you tell ME what 400 bucks gets you for the marque.....not much.

The old addage applies....you can pay me now... or pay me later!

R

71947

[dj10]

[quote]
You never addressed the money issue, or doesn't that matter?

71945

I'll field that one. How many more heat cycles will you get on Hoosiers carrying around 300 less pounds per lap? How about brakes? How about race fuel at 6.00 per gallon? That was your alternative- going up 300 lbs. Besides, I race a BMW....you tell ME what 400 bucks gets you for the marque.....not much.

The old addage applies....you can pay me now... or pay me later!

R

71947


We spend thousands trying to make the cars go faster and I HATE to spend money to make a car go SLOWER when there is nothing in the world wrong with the cars the way they are! A Quote form James Clay, "GIVE YOURSELF THE GIFT OF SLOW" Like I said NASA is looking better and better!

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 24 2006, 02:32 PM
I've seen motec's that are PROGRAMABLE every 100 rpm throughout the entire rpm range.
To me this is just common sense. Talk to an engineer I bet he concurs. You never addressed the money issue, or doesn't that matter?

71945


Being a person that is well versed in programable FI I will saay this. The difference between the haves and have not's will not be changed a great deal from where we are today under the restriction point. Motec still will have the same advantage it has now. Once the restriction kicks in the Motec will see greater losses due to bigger gains that a chipped ECU. Now as far as the money goes. I searched under your name and I don't think I can find one post by you saying you were concerned about how much money the other marques are having to spend in development and general money just to be on the same track with the given overdog. A budget guy like yourself maybe able to run toyo's for 6 races where a Z car is buying new goodyears every weekend to try to keep up. Please don't cry to me over 400 bucks like it will end your carreer because if thats the case you may want to be looking into ITC as it is a little more affordable. I do have a little sympothy(sp?) over the 45 dollar flat plat restrictor that these cars had to buy last year because I would have gone straight to the SIR then. This is a good thing and in the end you will be better off for it especially if a budget is your biggest concern.

Keep this in mind: This thing will cause little to no effect under the restriction point. Your changes in mapping will be little to NONE...Think of it as flat running out of air at the top but having an ample supply all the till you get there.

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 24 2006, 04:54 PM
Being a person that is well versed in programable FI I will saay this. The difference between the haves and have not's will not be changed a great deal from where we are today under the restriction point. Motec still will have the same advantage it has now. Once the restriction kicks in the Motec will see greater losses due to bigger gains that a chipped ECU. Now as far as the money goes. I searched under your name and I don't think I can find one post by you saying you were concerned about how much money the other marques are having to spend in development and general money just to be on the same track with the given overdog. A budget guy like yourself maybe able to run toyo's for 6 races where a Z car is buying new goodyears every weekend to try to keep up. Please don't cry to me over 400 bucks like it will end your carreer because if thats the case you may want to be looking into ITC as it is a little more affordable. I do have a little sympothy(sp?) over the 45 dollar flat plat restrictor that these cars had to buy last year because I would have gone straight to the SIR then. This is a good thing and in the end you will be better off for it especially if a budget is your biggest concern.

Keep this in mind: This thing will cause little to no effect under the restriction point. Your changes in mapping will be little to NONE...Think of it as flat running out of air at the top but having an ample supply all the till you get there.

71953


#1. Don't tell me I only spent 45 on a restrictor plate, when in fact you don't know what I paid because I didn't tell you, and it was a lot more than that.
#2. Don't assume that I run Toyo's when in fact you don't know what I run.
#3. You maybe well versed in programmable FI but in fact you can't accurately predict the advantage on motec of a ecu car with out actual side by side dyno testing.
#4. I'm better off fiancially than some and not as good as some. I do and try and speak for the less fortunate to try and keep the playing field equal for all concerned. This is trophy racing if you forgot.
#5 I guess you run on the west coast, but where I run the cars can be pretty damn even. So why change anything!
#6. DON'T PATRONIZE! It's not very becomming.
#7 Sympathy is between shit and syphilis in the dictionary.

[seckerich]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 24 2006, 04:01 PM
#1. Don't tell me I only spent 45 on a restrictor plate, when in fact you don't know what I paid because I didn't tell you, and it was a lot more than that.
#2. Don't assume that I run Toyo's when in fact you don't know what I run.
#3. You maybe well versed in programmable FI but in fact you can't accurately predict the advantage on motec of a ecu car with out actual side by side dyno testing.
#4. I'm better off fiancially than some and not as good as some. I do and try and speak for the less fortunate to try and keep the playing field equal for all concerned. This is trophy racing if you forgot.
#5 I guess you run on the west coast, but where I run the cars can be pretty damn even. So why change anything!
#6. DON'T PATRONIZE! It's not very becomming.
#7 Sympathy is between shit and syphilis in the dictionary.

71955

If you are looking for sympathy--look elsewhere. I have had to run against the fastest BMW's in the country the last 4 years and I have spent $10,000 + to just see them at the end of the straights. If the cars I'm talking about are not good examples (York, Whittel, Bimmerworld) or you think they were cheating and screwed the rest of the BMW crowd--YOU should have protested them. If you want to piss about a restrictor that might actually do something--consider it a gift. You should be a lot heavier and have to spend what I have to get to the front. Weight would have brought the tire wear, and corner speed in line with the power and TORQUE that car is capable of. Your car has great brakes, battery in rear with great weight balance, same gear spreads as most good ITS cars, and a torque band that is flat as a table-all with a power to weight ratio better than any other car classed in IT--sucks to be you.

[dj10]

Originally posted by seckerich@Jan 24 2006, 06:10 PM
If you are looking for sympathy--look elsewhere. I have had to run against the fastest BMW's in the country the last 4 years and I have spent $10,000 + to just see them at the end of the straights. If the cars I'm talking about are not good examples (York, Whittel, Bimmerworld) or you think they were cheating and screwed the rest of the BMW crowd--YOU should have protested them. If you want to piss about a restrictor that might actually do something--consider it a gift. You should be a lot heavier and have to spend what I have to get to the front. Weight would have brought the tire wear, and corner speed in line with the power and TORQUE that car is capable of. Your car has great brakes, battery in rear with great weight balance, same gear spreads as most good ITS cars, and a torque band that is flat as a table-all with a power to weight ratio better than any other car classed in IT--sucks to be you.

71963


Hey, I love my BMW, it's not for sale. :D I didn't start racing again to go slower. :D
They were beating you, not me for the last 4 yrs. why didn't you protest them if you think they are cheating? Better yet spend 50K and buy Whittel's car and see if you get the engine he has been running.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 24 2006, 03:01 PM
#1. Don't tell me I only spent 45 on a restrictor plate, when in fact you don't know what I paid because I didn't tell you, and it was a lot more than that.
#2. Don't assume that I run Toyo's when in fact you don't know what I run.
#3. You maybe well versed in programmable FI but in fact you can't accurately predict the advantage on motec of a ecu car with out actual side by side dyno testing.
#4. I'm better off fiancially than some and not as good as some. I do and try and speak for the less fortunate to try and keep the playing field equal for all concerned. This is trophy racing if you forgot.
#5 I guess you run on the west coast, but where I run the cars can be pretty damn even. So why change anything!
#6. DON'T PATRONIZE! It's not very becomming.
#7 Sympathy is between shit and syphilis in the dictionary.

71955



DJ, The restrictors were on E-bay for 45 bucks if you paid more than that it your problem not mine. I know what they could have been built for.

As far as toyos go I never said you ran on them I said guys that wanted to could but to keep up the Z's have had to run new goodyears every weekend.

I personally don't care how much money you have when cost becomes your primary whine then one assumes (with good reason)you are either a serious budget racer. I guess I should assume and I don't believe I did since you refered to yourself as a budget racer.

The west coast is no different than anywhere else a well prepped car with a marginal driver can beat Z's and RX7's all day long. A well prepped E36 that is well driven will dominate anyplace anytime. A marginally prepped and moarginally driven E36 will put on a good show with a Z or RX7 any where in the country. SO you be the judge is the car over classed (I think so)

No intent to patronize so sorry if you took it that way.

As far as sympathy goes if I offered it it was only cause you sounded like it was what you were looking for.

I can tell you I have dynoed the 240sx with OE wolf and toptech programs and I have dynoed the sme car with an AEM which I think is miles above the motec. I did these same day and the results were impressive on the top end. Which BTW is where the SIR will have most effect. The results across the middle were alittle closer with the Average HP and torque being better on the AEM.

My point is you already have this issue today with the Motec equipted E36's out there now. This issue will not change in the middle just because of the SIR. What will happen is you will be more likely to run a motec car down when it stop breathing. If your car makes less HP than the SIR regulates to then your car will be completely blind to it. I am not the bad guy here. I am offering up the information I have researched and had first hand.

As far as information goes you still did not offer up your Dyno sheets to see if you will even be effected by the SIR once in place.

[seckerich]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 24 2006, 05:28 PM
Hey, I love my BMW, it's not for sale. :D I didn't start racing again to go slower. :D
They were beating you, not me for the last 4 yrs. why didn't you protest them if you think they are cheating? Better yet spend 50K and buy Whittel's car and see if you get the engine he has been running.

71965

I did--but thats another story. :angry: Decided to do my own development and hope the comp board finally saw the light. But don't worry--the coolaid makers are spinning the dyno now to make up any losses. I would be watching a few Z cars from Atlanta that will rise from the dead with the weight break they got.

[steve s]

so when will these SIR go into effect???? for the e 36? need time for R&D .to be legal. :D

[dj10]

[quote]
I did--but thats another story. :angry:

What happened? I need to know send pvt if want. hehe
sirs go into effect 2/1/06

[dspillrat]

Originally posted by seckerich@Jan 25 2006, 01:54 AM
I did--but thats another story. :angry: Decided to do my own development and hope the comp board finally saw the light. But don't worry--the coolaid makers are spinning the dyno now to make up any losses. I would be watching a few Z cars from Atlanta that will rise from the dead with the weight break they got.

71984


The 280z,zx,&300 got quite a gift....Where did the red or tiger striped 300zx go from the southeast?.

If these SIRs truly limit HP to 220 crank....it should be a whole new ball game this year. Guess we'll all get to see if 240-250 HP was exageration or not. Torque is a different story...

Looking forward to this coming year!!!!

David Spillman
red 240z ,,,Haulassasorous :)
Southeast

[turboICE]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 24 2006, 05:07 PM
next thing, I'll have to have a HANS thats another $800.00!
Enough is enough! NASA is looking better and better

71939

You can't run to NASA if you don't want the investment in safety items - NASA will have the same SFI H&N restraint rule as all the sanctioning bodies likely will by the end of 2006 - probably within months if not weeks of BMWCCA and SCCA.

Still wondering if this will get SFI approval by then: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29674

[mlytle]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 10:05 PM
You can't run to NASA if you don't want the investment in safety items - NASA will have the same SFI H&N restraint rule as all the sanctioning bodies likely will by the end of 2006 - probably within months if not weeks of BMWCCA and SCCA.

Still wondering if this will get SFI approval by then: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29674

72389


bmwcca already has it....

[gpeluso]

guys I'm confused.........................after the arrc this year I thought the E36 nonsense would end. The BMW and RX7 were practically bumping doors. This race showed that the cars are very competitve. Second, RX7's have won ITS races this year above all ITS cars including BMW"S and Z's . RX7's this year have posted track records this year.(ex. NELSON LEDGES). I had an RX7 and no have a BMW. My take on the differences between the two cars is this. The BMW is a great car out of the box, you can have a competive car with a stock motor. An RX7 on the other hand is a pain in the ass if you don't have a clue on what brakes you need from what model,what to remove from the engine(ex. air pump), which correct fifth gears to have, which hood to have from certain model. The rotary itself can be a nightmare getting the most out of it. It takes too much R&D. So the real problem is RX7 people are pissed because BMW guys may not have switch things from model to model, BMW just made a good all around car. However, a fully prepped RX7 is can beat a fully prepped BMW. What's crazy is BMW guys don't know what to look for on an RX7 to tell if it's leagal and RX7 guys don't know what to look for on BMW's.
For the guy complaining about spending $10,000 over four years to be a RX7 front runner is funny. I wish I only had to spend $2500 a year to keep my BMW moving faster. I just did an engine and spent $7,000 and now I'm going to upgrade the suspension. "2006 THE YEAR OF THE RX7"

greg

:119:
Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 24 2006, 09:08 PM
DJ, The restrictors were on E-bay for 45 bucks if you paid more than that it your problem not mine. I know what they could have been built for.

As far as toyos go I never said you ran on them I said guys that wanted to could but to keep up the Z's have had to run new goodyears every weekend.

I personally don't care how much money you have when cost becomes your primary whine then one assumes (with good reason)you are either a serious budget racer. I guess I should assume and I don't believe I did since you refered to yourself as a budget racer.

The west coast is no different than anywhere else a well prepped car with a marginal driver can beat Z's and RX7's all day long. A well prepped E36 that is well driven will dominate anyplace anytime. A marginally prepped and moarginally driven E36 will put on a good show with a Z or RX7 any where in the country. SO you be the judge is the car over classed (I think so)

No intent to patronize so sorry if you took it that way.

As far as sympathy goes if I offered it it was only cause you sounded like it was what you were looking for.

I can tell you I have dynoed the 240sx with OE wolf and toptech programs and I have dynoed the sme car with an AEM which I think is miles above the motec. I did these same day and the results were impressive on the top end. Which BTW is where the SIR will have most effect. The results across the middle were alittle closer with the Average HP and torque being better on the AEM.

My point is you already have this issue today with the Motec equipted E36's out there now. This issue will not change in the middle just because of the SIR. What will happen is you will be more likely to run a motec car down when it stop breathing. If your car makes less HP than the SIR regulates to then your car will be completely blind to it. I am not the bad guy here. I am offering up the information I have researched and had first hand.

As far as information goes you still did not offer up your Dyno sheets to see if you will even be effected by the SIR once in place.

71975

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by gpeluso@Jan 26 2006, 08:57 PM
you can have a competive car with a stock motor.
greg

:119:

72444


And it's the only ITS car that can...Now you know why your getting the restrictor.

On a side note somebody should let the guy on E-bay know his business plans have be altered... E-bay restrictor (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/New-2005-SCCA-Rules-Require-this-plate-BMW-ITS_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ6755QQitemZ46063660 79QQrdZ1)

[lateapex911]

Greg, I don't want to go down the "results" road too seriously, but....

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the RX-7 that set the record at Nelson, (and won races there and elsewhere) the very same RX-7 that was so strong at the ARRCs?

Tell, me, does anyone know, if that one car that is dominant over all the other 7s is legal?? I'm not saying it isn't, but when ONE car of a marque is so successful, it does need to be considered.

And that is just one of the issues with using results as a benchmark.

I will say this though. The E36 can be very strong...an overdog... when built to the 9s. James Clay himself, (Has to be 2 years ago at this point) said so himself in these very forums. And the issue has been that the car is very stout torquewise, and then backs it up with big top end power. The walk away on the straights kind of power. Weight would have it cornering slower, braking sooner, and pulling off corners more slowly. The SIR really only addresses the top end issue.

I think you are arguing whether there is a problem, and I don't think that one specific car is enough to make a case, especially when the raw physical numbers say otherwise.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by gpeluso@Jan 26 2006, 10:57 PM
The BMW is a great car out of the box, you can have a competive car with a stock motor.

greg


72444

:018:

Do you have any idea what you said here?

You tell me what you would rather have:

1. Weight at 2850 and a max hp number that fits the class
2. Weight at 3100-3150 and an unrestricted motor?

#1 is calculated backward using the same process everyone else ran through.
#2 is calculated forward using the same process everyone else ran through.

BMW guys are bitching about being the only car that is 'restricted' in anyway while we preach on and on about the 'same for all'...I submit they want #2.

MAKE IT SO.

AB

[gpeluso]

:119:
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 27 2006, 12:19 AM
:018:

Do you have any idea what you said here?

You tell me what you would rather have:

1. Weight at 2850 and a max hp number that fits the class
2. Weight at 3100-3150 and an unrestricted motor?

#1 is calculated backward using the same process everyone else ran through.
#2 is calculated forward using the same process everyone else ran through.

BMW guys are bitching about being the only car that is 'restricted' in anyway while we preach on and on about the 'same for all'...I submit they want #2.

MAKE IT SO.


Andy,
I am not saying that. What I'm saying is that a stock BMW engine isn't that much different than a BMW ITS engine, However a RX7 stock engine with all the crap on it s so much slower than an RX7 engine that has been prepped for ITS. A new guy can buy a BMW and not worry that he does,t live near Florida or one of the other areas where the RX7 gods live. Andy do you personally run a RX7 or any car in ITS? Hey, I wanted to run an RX7 but there was no support in my area, I lost my ass on my RX7. I would not recommend a newbie to build a second gen, due to the difficulty.

Greg

AB

72450

[dj10]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 05:05 PM
You can't run to NASA if you don't want the investment in safety items - NASA will have the same SFI H&N restraint rule as all the sanctioning bodies likely will by the end of 2006 - probably within months if not weeks of BMWCCA and SCCA.

Still wondering if this will get SFI approval by then: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29674

72389


Yea does that suck! I think these sanctioning bodies should start autocrossing if there afraid someone will get hurt or killed.

[Bill Miller]

Greg said:


I am not saying that. What I'm saying is that a stock BMW engine isn't that much different than a BMW ITS engine, However a RX7 stock engine with all the crap on it s so much slower than an RX7 engine that has been prepped for ITS. A new guy can buy a BMW and not worry that he does,t live near Florida or one of the other areas where the RX7 gods live. Andy do you personally run a RX7 or any car in ITS? Hey, I wanted to run an RX7 but there was no support in my area, I lost my ass on my RX7. I would not recommend a newbie to build a second gen, due to the difficulty.


Greg,

I don't know if you really don't have much information about these cars, or are just trying to pull the wool over everybody's eyes. Not much difference between a stock 189 CRANK hp motor and an IT-prepped 200+ WHEEL hp motor? Yeah, ok, I buy that.

As far as Andy's experience w/ 2nd gen. RX7s, are you familiar w/ Nick Leverone's car? That car was run out of Andy's shop. So yeah, I think he's got a bit of experience w/ a top 2nd gen. RX7. ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by gpeluso@Jan 27 2006, 08:53 AM
Andy do you personally run a RX7 or any car in ITS? Hey, I wanted to run an RX7 but there was no support in my area, I lost my ass on my RX7. I would not recommend a newbie to build a second gen, due to the difficulty.

72469


I don't currently, but did. We have one team car and one arrive and drive car in our shop now. RX-7's are popular in the NE for a couple reasons: Good support by us, no top E36's, cheap donors.

I disagree with you in this respect: There is just as much difference in an IT-prepped E36 2.5 as there is in almost every other piston-based engine in IT. 25% more power than stock is 25% more power. Just because at the stock hp levels - and the spec weight of 2850, the can can be competitive, doesn't make it an easier ENGINE to build, just a rediculously favorable classification.

Frankly, all you have to do to the rotory, is strip the junk off of it, put the latest exhaust on it, adjust the fuel pressure to your set-up, and you are 90% there. No internal allowances by the rules makes for a simple and RELATIVELY inexpensive build. Sometimes, you just have to know what you alooking at before it becomes 'simple'.

Please answer my question above, in order to be judged by the same power to weight as everyone else in the class, would you like to be unrestricted at 3100-3150 or restricted at the current weight?

[dj10]

AB,
I'm worried that no one has given us any data and keep using the usless "Crank HP" numbers. I'm getting ready to spend $400.00 on something that has no test numbers only in theory!
I want to know what rwhp you guys want us at! This is useful hp and I don't want percentages, I want actual numbers. If this doesn't work or we have to spend more money on a different size SIR, is everyone in ITS going to throw money into SCCA to reimburse us for pissing away our money...........I didn't think so! I hope like hell some thought of this and did their homework! We will have to spend more money on this other than the SIR itself.

a nervous dj

[its66]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 27 2006, 10:35 AM
AB,
<delete>, is everyone in ITS going to throw money into SCCA to reimburse us for pissing away our money...........I didn&#39;t think so! I hope like hell some thought of this and did their homework! We will have to spend more money on this other than the SIR itself.

a nervous dj

72478



If they do, I am still waiting for what it cost me to get rid of remote resevoirs. (substantially more than $400)
\
:D

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 27 2006, 09:35 AM
AB,
I&#39;m worried that no one has given us any data and keep using the usless "Crank HP" numbers. I&#39;m getting ready to spend $400.00 on something that has no test numbers only in theory!
I want to know what rwhp you guys want us at! This is useful hp and I don&#39;t want percentages, I want actual numbers. If this doesn&#39;t work or we have to spend more money on a different size SIR, is everyone in ITS going to throw money into SCCA to reimburse us for pissing away our money...........I didn&#39;t think so! I hope like hell some thought of this and did their homework! We will have to spend more money on this other than the SIR itself.

a nervous dj

72478


Actually DJ, one could argue that the WHP numbers are the ones that are useless. Think of the multitude of NON-engine factors that go into improving your hp to the wheels. What kind of dyno are you using? Dynojet? Mustang? Dynapak?

This is why we use dyno numbers as data for trending, not a primary source of info, it can be so flawed. There are no stock WHP numbers posted anywhere so we have to use crank numbers throughout the process.

One look at the stock hp levels of the E36 and it was obvious that compared to other cars in ITS, it was light, VERY LIGHT. When the standard 25% improvement with 100% IT-prep is applied, you get 236 crank hp. Following the process through to it&#39;s conclusion, the Bimmer would have to weigh between 3100 and 3150 (depending on adders) to fit with the other cars.

The FP restrictor is cheatable. Hence the SIR. I understand your hesitance on it&#39;s effectiveness, but you have heard here that it will actually be better for your car than a FP or the weight - if it is sized right...and the CRB is confident that the formula for sizing these things (which is proven) has nailed it. Buy the modular one from Raetech. Then you only will have to buy the insert to change up.......

.....because if the SIR chokes you down to below 220hp (or maybe 180whp on a dynojet - estimate - you decide what whp is your target given 220chp) a resize SHOULD be considered - and I will push for that.

BUT...should you determine that it is too large and you are above that magic number of 220chp, you will write that same letter to the CRB asking them to DOWNSIZE your SIR, right? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhttttt.

[dj10]

Originally posted by its66@Jan 27 2006, 09:39 AM
If they do, I am still waiting for what it cost me to get rid of remote resevoirs. (substantially more than $400)
\
:D

72479


Jim, you should be compensated!

[dj10]

This is why we use dyno numbers as data for trending, not a primary source of info, it can be so flawed. There are no stock WHP numbers posted anywhere so we have to use crank numbers throughout the process.

One look at the stock hp levels of the E36 and it was obvious that compared to other cars in ITS, it was light, VERY LIGHT. When the standard 25% improvement with 100% IT-prep is applied, you get 236 crank hp. Following the process through to it&#39;s conclusion, the Bimmer would have to weigh between 3100 and 3150 (depending on adders) to fit with the other cars.

and the CRB is confident that the formula for sizing these things (which is proven) has nailed it. Buy the modular one from Raetech. Then you only will have to buy the insert to change up.......

.....because if the SIR chokes you down to below 220hp (or maybe 180whp on a dynojet - estimate - you decide what whp is your target given 220chp) a resize SHOULD be considered - and I will push for that.

BUT...should you determine that it is too large and you are above that magic number of 220chp, you will write that same letter to the CRB asking them to DOWNSIZE your SIR, right? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhttttt.

72481
[/quote]

AB, where are you getting crank hp numbers? Are you taking published factory hp numbers and adding a percent to them? That is theroetical not factual. I have no way of knowing how much crank hp I have, therefore I wouldn&#39;t write to anyone. I can only tell or show you my rwhp and what kind of dyno I used like I did when I sent you my dyno sheets last year. Right? So why not go the NASA way and require everyone to have signed dyno sheets? We know Dave so I will getting mine from Raetech. I would like to see published Crank Dyno numbers, you know where they are?
dj

[Joe Harlan]

So why not go the NASA way and require everyone to have signed dyno sheets?

Now thats funny.....You can&#39;t cheat a dyno..... B) DJ, it has been explained for 12 pages now, Bite the bullet buy the SIR and be done with it. If you know David call him and he will give you the complete rundown. Going to certified Dyno&#39;s only works if we all go on the same day and run at the same time in the same location. Those numbers are all based on correction factors very similar to the proven 25% estimations the ITAC is working with. What you are not doing while complaining here is getting that SIR mounted in your car so you can do the testing needed to know in the end you will be just fine.

[Bill Miller]

I have no way of knowing how much crank hp I have, therefore I wouldn&#39;t write to anyone.

Why&#39;s that dj, nobody w/ an engine dyno around you?

BTW, would you please answer Andy&#39;s question. If YOU could decide, would it be 3100-3150# w/ no restrictor, or 2850# w/ hp limited to 220 (crank hp) by an SIR?

[dj10]

Those numbers are all based on correction factors very similar to the proven 25% estimations the ITAC is working with. What you are not doing while complaining here is getting that SIR mounted in your car so you can do the testing needed to know in the end you will be just fine.

72491
[/quote]

Hmmmmmm proven 25% estimations. What a contradiction of terms. :D

Joe, your right at this point I am left with no option other than going to NASA if I want to continue to race SCCA. So I hope you are right and things will be fine.

[dj10]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 27 2006, 11:11 AM
Why&#39;s that dj, nobody w/ an engine dyno around you?

BTW, would you please answer Andy&#39;s question. If YOU could decide, would it be 3100-3150# w/ no restrictor, or 2850# w/ hp limited to 220 (crank hp) by an SIR?

72494


Bill, to honestly answer AB&#39;s question. No way would I want that weight. I would definately be going to nasa if I had this weight.

[steve s]

:unsure: i&#39;ll take the weight for now. and after i do some dyno work on the car i&#39;ll let you know if i want the weight or the SIR.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 27 2006, 09:29 AM


Those numbers are all based on correction factors very similar to the proven 25% estimations the ITAC is working with. What you are not doing while complaining here is getting that SIR mounted in your car so you can do the testing needed to know in the end you will be just fine.

72491


Hmmmmmm proven 25% estimations. What a contradiction of terms. :D

Joe, your right at this point I am left with no option other than going to NASA if I want to continue to race SCCA. So I hope you are right and things will be fine.

72498



Yep, your right but I have been working on estimations for years and they have proven to be pretty accurate... :D

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 27 2006, 10:32 AM
Bill, to honestly answer AB&#39;s question. No way would I want that weight. I would definately be going to nasa if I had this weight.

72499



Well there you go dj, you wouldn&#39;t race the car at the weight that&#39;s determined by the same process that&#39;s applied to everyone else. So, what you&#39;ve said, is that you want to be treated differently than everyone else. About the only thing I can say to that, is have fun racing w/ NASA and BMWCCA.! :023: :happy204: There&#39;s another comment about door knobs, but I&#39;ll leave that one out. ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 27 2006, 10:39 AM

AB, where are you getting crank hp numbers? Are you taking published factory hp numbers and adding a percent to them? That is theroetical not factual. I have no way of knowing how much crank hp I have, therefore I wouldn&#39;t write to anyone. I can only tell or show you my rwhp and what kind of dyno I used like I did when I sent you my dyno sheets last year. Right? So why not go the NASA way and require everyone to have signed dyno sheets? We know Dave so I will getting mine from Raetech. I would like to see published Crank Dyno numbers, you know where they are?
dj

72490


DJ,

The entire process is based on crank hp numbers - and assumptions. To date, the estimations and assumptions have been extreamly successful. In some cases, we have dyno sheets that prove or disprove certain assumptions.

Take the 12A RX-7 for example. 101 hp stock IIRC. Guess what? This is an ITC car all the way! But we KNOW, based on dyno info, that these cars can make over 150 crank hp. How? We use a commonly accepted 18% drivetrain loss and work backward from 125whp - a well documented - and sometimes conservative number. That is a 50% increase over stock.

Same issue with the hot CRX in ITA. 108hp stock IIRC, and 125whp on a dyno in legal, top-of-the-line form. Using a fwd correction factor of 15%, you can get the crank numbers pretty close. Not exactly, but as close as you can.

Now the BMW does not use any secret formula. It&#39;s the same for everyone else. 189 * 1.25 = 236. This number is supported, almost to the hp, by a dyno sheet sent in by a BMW owner who was disputing the 225whp numbers being thrown around - using the same process and assumptions detailed above.

You may not agree with the way we are doing it, but understand that we do it for everyone - the same way. We do it to determine mon weights for new cars and we do it to determine new weights for reclassifications.

So the net/net? ITS has a target power to weight in IT-prep of 12.9:1. Our data shows that AT LEAST 240 crank hp is possible. That is too much for ITS, and in unrestricted form, has had an impact on the class, both in reality and in perception.

You can either run the weight you are supposed to to fit, or get an SIR. The other cars in the class are already at the weight they should be to fit, or they would hev been adjusted. ALL USING THE SAME METHODS.

The ONLY issue on the table is if the SIR is sized properly. That is something the CRB is VERY confident of given experience and research.

AB

[dj10]

You can either run the weight you are supposed to to fit, or get an SIR. The other cars in the class are already at the weight they should be to fit, or they would hev been adjusted. ALL USING THE SAME METHODS.

The ONLY issue on the table is if the SIR is sized properly. That is something the CRB is VERY confident of given experience and research.

AB

72518
[/quote]

From what you are saying, the person with the unbelievable 225whp is really going to get hosed unless he and his "et" motec are able to tune in more hp. I am assuming they have a programable system since no engine builder I know has ever got this out of a legal 325.
I like Lytle&#39;s suggestion, make everyone run a SIR! Misery loves company. :D

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 27 2006, 12:46 PM


You can either run the weight you are supposed to to fit, or get an SIR. The other cars in the class are already at the weight they should be to fit, or they would hev been adjusted. ALL USING THE SAME METHODS.

The ONLY issue on the table is if the SIR is sized properly. That is something the CRB is VERY confident of given experience and research.

AB

72518


From what you are saying, the person with the unbelievable 225whp is really going to get hosed unless he and his "et" motec are able to tune in more hp. I am assuming they have a programable system since no engine builder I know has ever got this out of a legal 325.
I like Lytle&#39;s suggestion, make everyone run a SIR! Misery loves company. :D

72520


DJ, I think you are just screwing around now. But let me say this. Even with the Motec you are NOT going to tune around the SIR by more than 1 or 2 HP at best. An engine is an air pump it needs air to make power. The beauty of the SIR is it stops air flow (goes sonic) at a designated place ( bsed on displacement and other factors you&#39;ll have to research yourself) in the power curve. SO you can build a 280CHP engine but the SIR will hold it to 215 to 220 as stated. Now as far as other car needing it I don&#39;t believe it was ever designed to be a way to keep cars inside a rules set. The SIR can be cheated with compression and cams. Those things are already illegal in IT and require a protest to catch. You can bet that if I see an E36 pulling down the straight the same way they used to I will be writing a big check. The SIR is not a magic bullett it is another tool to put cars together that otherwise may not fit. As stated before the E36 is that car and the choices i could see were kick it out, move all the other ITS cars to ITA and we know crap flows down hill so I guess the 510&#39;s and rabbits wouldhave to disappear. Or use technology to work it out. I am impressed with Mr. Lytles attitude and I would offer any help I could give via the phone to help his development but I think if people are realistic they will add this unit in front of the maf snap a cone filter to the end of it and go to the dyno. I would then lay the dyno sheets side by side and I think you will see the computer compensates up to the point the engine runs out of air. I made that offer in one of these threads that anyone that want to go to the dyno for a half day that I would go along and help to tune or what ever I can offer at the dyno. I charge 75 bucks an hour shop rate for my time and I would donate that to prove this works. Now any of you eastcoasters would have to cover airfare also.. ;)

[dj10]

DJ, I think you are just screwing around now. But let me say this. Even with the Motec you are NOT going to tune around the SIR by more than 1 or 2 HP at best. An engine is an air pump it needs air to make power. The beauty of the SIR is it stops air flow (goes sonic) at a designated place ( bsed on displacement and other factors you&#39;ll have to research yourself) in the power curve. SO you can build a 280CHP engine but the SIR will hold it to 215 to 220 as stated. Now as far as other car needing it I don&#39;t believe it was ever designed to be a way to keep cars inside a rules set. The SIR can be cheated with compression and cams. Those things are already illegal in IT and require a protest to catch. You can bet that if I see an E36 pulling down the straight the same way they used to I will be writing a big check. The SIR is not a magic bullett it is another tool to put cars together that otherwise may not fit. As stated before the E36 is that car and the choices i could see were kick it out, move all the other ITS cars to ITA and we know crap flows down hill so I guess the 510&#39;s and rabbits wouldhave to disappear. Or use technology to work it out. I am impressed with Mr. Lytles attitude and I would offer any help I could give via the phone to help his development but I think if people are realistic they will add this unit in front of the maf snap a cone filter to the end of it and go to the dyno. I would then lay the dyno sheets side by side and I think you will see the computer compensates up to the point the engine runs out of air. I made that offer in one of these threads that anyone that want to go to the dyno for a half day that I would go along and help to tune or what ever I can offer at the dyno. I charge 75 bucks an hour shop rate for my time and I would donate that to prove this works. Now any of you eastcoasters would have to cover airfare also.. ;)

72522
[/quote]
I&#39;m just trying to figure out if everyone thinks bmw 325&#39;s make 225 rwhp? That number is absurd. At the figures you provided they would be running 281 hp @ the crank!
I think we will have to manage without you.......because there is no way in hell I&#39;m flying you in! hehe
Marshall&#39;s attitude is pretty much the same as mine, he is just more diplomatic.
We&#39;ll keep you abreast of the SIR experiment and thanks for RC Eng. link, mine are going out next week to them.

[Knestis]

I occurs to me - late in the game, obviously - that nobody has really explained HOW an SIR is supposed to work.

Power output is proportional to airflow thorugh an engine - pretty damned directly - so if airflow in can be controlled, so can power.

Air is a fluid and behaves in very predictable ways when it flows, until it reaches the speed of sound (the "sonic" thing referred to above), at which point it starts behaving VERY differently. This killed all of those test pilots before Chuck Yeager and the X1 finally got trans-sonic (going to and past the speed of sound) airflow under control, and broke the sound barrier.

It is relatively easy (and repeatable!) math to figure out (1) what kind of airflow corresponds to what kind of power, and (2) at what cross-section of inlet that volume of air is forced to "go sonic." The point at which it does, airflow goes all junk and the engine stops making power.

Yes - this technology has been used in other series, pioneered in Euro/Asian/Brit F3 20 years or more ago. My concerns, fustercluck-wise, are less about the technical aspects of implementing SIRs in club racing, and more about the policy implications. It&#39;s not going to be long, regardless of how well this answer plays out in ITS on one make of car, before someone seriously suggests that in lieu of a set of rules defining modifications, we implement IT28, IT25, IT23, and IT21 - with each class governed by an air hole and Katie-bar-the-door on the engine rules under that restriction.

WHY would this be a problem? For precisely the same reason that F3 engines cost a bazillion dollars to develop, and WRC engines face the same problem, constrained by boost limit: It all comes back to maximizing the area under the torque curve and those little changes can in fact become meaningful, to a race-winning degree.

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis@Jan 27 2006, 09:11 PM
It all comes back to maximizing the area under the torque curve and those little changes can in fact become meaningful, to a race-winning degree.

K

72526



Kirk... Thanks for the clarification as to the function of the SIR... I&#39;m sure there are still people who aren&#39;t getting the significance of how this works yet, but they will eventually...


As for your closing comment... Let&#39;s remember one thing... THIS IS IMPROVED TOURING... You just can&#39;t do THAT much to make a lot of changes to these curves... Certainly nothing more than can be done today... This isn&#39;t like a different cam profile... or anything that changes the curve at all... it just cuts it off at a specified airflow...

I don&#39;t know if it&#39;s been mentioned, but Bob Dowie has tested these, both on the Dyno and on the track... he reports to us that they have yet to make ANY adjustments to any of the FI cars... They react as if it&#39;s not there, right up until it is (sonic...)... On Carb&#39;d cars, they don&#39;t even have to change jets...

Like Joe has mentioned... You MIGHT be able to squeeze 1, maybe 2 hp out of a good MOTEC system with this in place, but otherwise, the engine is blind to it right up until it hits sonic...

It keeps race cars as race cars... Or, in NASCAR&#39;s case, race trucks... They&#39;ll be using a similiar SIR device at the large tracks this coming season... WHY???? Because restrictor plate racing SUCKS, and hurts drivability... SIRs do NOT...

[lateapex911]

Kirk, I see your point. But like we&#39;ve all said before, (you too, ;0) it is extremely diffcult to control spending in racing.

If I had an E36, I too would readjust my thinking. "Hmmm, if the SIR chops off the top end, then maybe I should work on the other parts of the curve..."

Well, duh! Of course I should...but really, why wasn&#39;t I before? Common wisdom always reminds us that it&#39;s the numbers "under the curve" that count. Pehaps I have done my homework, and there were tradeoffs, and I chose the top end power. Well, now it&#39;s simply a matter of going to "plan B"... as my decision of going for peak numbers has been trumped by the SIR.

I don&#39;t see the dangers as you do, of the spending spree that the SIRs have casued in the Formula car ranks, as our engines are much more restricted...stock this, stock that, and so on.

That said, I would be naive to think that there aren&#39;t guys spending as much money as they can to find the last few percents of power. Look at Spec Miata...super low drag con rods, ceramic bearings, trick treatings to the gear sets, one in a million parts matching, and so on. Some of it&#39;s legal, some of its not. it&#39;s all pricey, and theres no way to restrict the spending on the legal bits.

That won&#39;t change, no matter what we do. Well, maybe the best way is to make winning undesireable and meaningless. (In a perverse way, watching budgets expand is a signal that a series has cachet and desirability.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 27 2006, 03:43 PM
I&#39;m just trying to figure out if everyone thinks bmw 325&#39;s make 225 rwhp? That number is absurd. At the figures you provided they would be running 281 hp @ the crank!
I think we will have to manage without you.......because there is no way in hell I&#39;m flying you in! hehe
Marshall&#39;s attitude is pretty much the same as mine, he is just more diplomatic.
We&#39;ll keep you abreast of the SIR experiment and thanks for RC Eng. link, mine are going out next week to them.

72523

NOOOOO!!! Our data shows a non-Motec equipped motor at 195whp and a max of 210whp on full-bore stuff. Please read the posts fully before jumping to this stuff. Somebody out there may claim it, but we have no evidence as such and are not basing our figures on it.

AB

[gpeluso]

ANDY,
WHAT KIND OF NUMBERS DO YOUR RX7&#39;S HAVE?
SPEEDSOURCES?
RX7 AT THE ARRC?(SECOND PLACE)

THE SIR MAY NOT MATTER AGAINST YOUR CARS THAT YOU BUILD/MAINTAIN,
BUT WHO EVER BUILT THE ONE THAT WAS AT THE ARRC MAY DOMINATE A RESTRICTED BMW. SO, WITH YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH YOUR CARS MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT ,AND THE BMW IS MUCH MUCH FASTER THAN YOUR RX7&#39;S.........HOWEVER, SOMEONE OUT THERE REALLY KNOWS HOW TO BUILD A SUPERFAST RX7 (ARRC CAR) AND WILL PROBABLY GET ORDERS TO BUILD OR MAINTAIN EXISTING CARS.

ANDY, DON&#39;T TELL ME NOW HOW FAST YOUR CARS ARE COMPARED TO OTHER ITS CARS, BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN TELLING US HOW THIS WILL HELP LEVEL THINGS. HOW MUCH FASTER WAS THE OTHER RX7 COMPARED TO YOURS?, MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON THAT. AND DON&#39;T TELL ME HE WAS CHEATTING............IF HE WAS WHY DIDN&#39;T HE GET CAUGHT. THAT GUY TO ME RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.


SORRY(YOU JUST RUFFLED MY FEATHERS)
GREG





:happy204:
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 27 2006, 05:47 PM
NOOOOO!!! Our data shows a non-Motec equipped motor at 195whp and a max of 210whp on full-bore stuff. Please read the posts fully before jumping to this stuff. Somebody out there may claim it, but we have no evidence as such and are not basing our figures on it.

AB

72529

[dj10]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 27 2006, 04:47 PM
NOOOOO!!! Our data shows a non-Motec equipped motor at 195whp and a max of 210whp on full-bore stuff. Please read the posts fully before jumping to this stuff. Somebody out there may claim it, but we have no evidence as such and are not basing our figures on it.

AB

72529


Am I correct in saying full-bore stuff (210 rwhp) is a motec or similar system? If that&#39;s the case, I&#39;ll agree to that. You guy are trying to get us down to 175 to 180 rwhp? Which, by your definition is a mediocre perpared BMW Engine. Hmmmmm
guess we&#39;ll see.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by gpeluso@Jan 27 2006, 10:35 PM
AND DON&#39;T TELL ME HE WAS CHEATTING............IF HE WAS WHY DIDN&#39;T HE GET CAUGHT.
72533



HUH??? :blink: That is the FUNNIEST thing I&#39;ve heard all day!! :happy204:

<_<

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by gpeluso@Jan 27 2006, 05:35 PM
ANDY,
WHAT KIND OF NUMBERS DO YOUR RX7&#39;S HAVE?
SPEEDSOURCES?
RX7 AT THE ARRC?(SECOND PLACE)

..... AND DON&#39;T TELL ME HE WAS CHEATTING............IF HE WAS WHY DIDN&#39;T HE GET CAUGHT. THAT GUY TO ME RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.

GREG
:happy204:

72533


Greg- That&#39;s TWICE now! First you say it&#39;s easy to be competitive in a stock motored BMW...which pretty much proves, based on logic alone, that a built one will be more than competitive. That one was so easy I ignored it, but now you come up with this gem!

I won&#39;t say he&#39;s cheating, but you CAN"T base a case on ONE guy at ONE race!

I have a secret...I know this guy...he cheats. But he hasn&#39;t been caught. So does that make him legal? NO! Why hasn&#39;t he been caught you ask? Because nobody has bothered to protest him...usually there aren&#39;t enough engine peices still assembled to each other after a race to base a protest on!

Listen...use some logic. Not getting caught does NOT equal legality!

And it&#39;s all BS anyway....this isn&#39;t about results, its about a numerical process.

Shoot logical, well founded holes in the process, and you will make ground.

[dj10]

NOOOOO!!! Our data shows a non-Motec equipped motor at 195whp and a max of 210whp on full-bore stuff. Please read the posts fully before jumping to this stuff. Somebody out there may claim it, but we have no evidence as such and are not basing our figures on it.

AB
[/b]

I would like to know what dyno you are using when you say we will be limited to 217 to 220 crank hp? As you know dyno jets measure differently than mustang.

[Andy Bettencourt]

ANDY,
WHAT KIND OF NUMBERS DO YOUR RX7&#39;S HAVE?
SPEEDSOURCES?
RX7 AT THE ARRC?(SECOND PLACE)

THE SIR MAY NOT MATTER AGAINST YOUR CARS THAT YOU BUILD/MAINTAIN,
BUT WHO EVER BUILT THE ONE THAT WAS AT THE ARRC MAY DOMINATE A RESTRICTED BMW. SO, WITH YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH YOUR CARS MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT ,AND THE BMW IS MUCH MUCH FASTER THAN YOUR RX7&#39;S.........HOWEVER, SOMEONE OUT THERE REALLY KNOWS HOW TO BUILD A SUPERFAST RX7 (ARRC CAR) AND WILL PROBABLY GET ORDERS TO BUILD OR MAINTAIN EXISTING CARS.

ANDY, DON&#39;T TELL ME NOW HOW FAST YOUR CARS ARE COMPARED TO OTHER ITS CARS, BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN TELLING US HOW THIS WILL HELP LEVEL THINGS. HOW MUCH FASTER WAS THE OTHER RX7 COMPARED TO YOURS?, MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON THAT. AND DON&#39;T TELL ME HE WAS CHEATTING............IF HE WAS WHY DIDN&#39;T HE GET CAUGHT. THAT GUY TO ME RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.
SORRY(YOU JUST RUFFLED MY FEATHERS)
GREG
:happy204:
[/b]

The RX-7&#39;s that have been run through our shop have seen between 165whp and 181whp. IIRC, Speedsource (where we get our initial builds) cars run 180-182whp. The second place car at the ARRC I have no insider info.

Why would I focus on how another RX-7 did in a RACE than ours? It means LITTLE in terms of hp and potential. Without INTIMATE knowledge of car set-up and a myriad of other issues, it is impossible to use one race to make a judgement. It&#39;s all about numbers, not results. This is a baseline reorg, not a results-based comp adjustment. You have to look at it for what it is.

It doesn&#39;t ruin any arguement. You want to say that the RX-7 and BMW are evenly matched now with the 2005 restrictor requirement in place...fine - let&#39;s assume that the current restrictor rule provides enough restriction for those who use it properly. It can be defeated and create a class overdog, so the two options that were laid out as detailed before. An SIR, properly sized, is more effective than a FP restrictor, which was a mistake. The E36 must be restricted in order to fit the class we can agree on that because the BMW guys are shouting nothing is wrong right now. . For those of you who are pointing out this years ARRC results as proof things are equal, you may be right, maybe not - but that E36 was restricted. The plan isn&#39;t to restrict it more, just to &#39;properly&#39; restrict it. The idea isn&#39;t to restrict more, just more effectively.

And when you realize what the SIR does to the airflow, you get back all the disruption a poorly done FP restrictor loses you.

Some of the questions are legit. Those who are freaked out, would you rather be restricted or run the &#39;process weight&#39;? Mnay have a problem answering this because the idea of an SIR is rediculous to them, yet they certainly don&#39;t want to weigh 3100+ (even though it provides the proper pw/wt).

What do you want?

AB



Am I correct in saying full-bore stuff (210 rwhp) is a motec or similar system? If that&#39;s the case, I&#39;ll agree to that. You guy are trying to get us down to 175 to 180 rwhp? Which, by your definition is a mediocre perpared BMW Engine. Hmmmmm
guess we&#39;ll see.
[/b]

I don&#39;t understand you point at all.

[gpeluso]

Jake,

Congats!!!!! If you are pointing your finger at a cheater here and not at the track at SCCA events. You are ruining the argument that a BMW is clearly an overgog. The way I look at it is this gentlemen showing us the full potential of the RX7. Great place to call someone a cheater and give absolutely now evidence!

By the way, I am looking at the numbers based on what Andy supplied(And you know his RX7 is slower than the one we are talking about) . When I talked to one of the best BMW engine builders he claimed his engine s were putting out between 189-194hp. Isn&#39;t the BMW weight more than the RX7. I&#39;m lost, where is the hole you speak of.
By the way, while your at it ,who else are you calling a cheater!


Greg

:023:

Greg- That&#39;s TWICE now! First you say it&#39;s easy to be competitive in a stock motored BMW...which pretty much proves, based on logic alone, that a built one will be more than competitive. That one was so easy I ignored it, but now you come up with this gem!

I won&#39;t say he&#39;s cheating, but you CAN"T base a case on ONE guy at ONE race!

I have a secret...I know this guy...he cheats. But he hasn&#39;t been caught. So does that make him legal? NO! Why hasn&#39;t he been caught you ask? Because nobody has bothered to protest him...usually there aren&#39;t enough engine peices still assembled to each other after a race to base a protest on!

Listen...use some logic. Not getting caught does NOT equal legality!

And it&#39;s all BS anyway....this isn&#39;t about results, its about a numerical process.

Shoot logical, well founded holes in the process, and you will make ground.
[/b]

[Andy Bettencourt]

By the way, I am looking at the numbers based on what Andy supplied(And you know his RX7 is slower than the one we are talking about) . When I talked to one of the best BMW engine builders he claimed his engine s were putting out between 189-194hp. Isn&#39;t the BMW weight more than the RX7. I&#39;m lost, where is the hole you speak of.

:023:
[/b]

So let me get this straight. You are quoting RX-7 WHP numbers on a car nobody has seen for more than 4 races, from a BMW engine builder?

I can&#39;t wait for all the RX-7 guys on this BB who have full-tilt Speedsource motors to comment on a 189-194whp 13B!!!! What do you think Bill D? Everyone else?

:lol:

AB

[buldogge]

Hold on here... Everyone has always whined about the E36 and its numbers...yet...You have just (again) pointed out that the RX-7 makes 180+ rwhp....and now we are to be limited to this same horsepower BUT at 200# heavier...where&#39;s the parity exactly???

How &#39;bout instead of us having 2 whole weeks to implement an entirely new system...you guys (ITAC, CRB, BoD) get off your asses and test a 27mm SIR on the actual model car you intend it for and change the implementation date to a more reasonable timeframe AFTER you have finished said testing!!!...???

...or...does the rush job benefit some points race or ???



So let me get this straight. You are quoting RX-7 WHP numbers on a car nobody has seen for more than 4 races, from a BMW engine builder?

I can&#39;t wait for all the RX-7 guys on this BB who have full-tilt Speedsource motors to comment on a 189-194whp 13B!!!! What do you think Bill D? Everyone else?

:lol:

AB
[/b]

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hold on here... Everyone has always whined about the E36 and its numbers...yet...You have just (again) pointed out that the RX-7 makes 180+ rwhp....and now we are to be limited to this same horsepower BUT at 200# heavier...where&#39;s the parity exactly???


...or...does the rush job benefit some points race or ???
[/b]

Care to consider the large brakes and HUGE torque advantage the BMW has? RX-7&#39;s make 128-130ftlbs at teh wheels. And it&#39;s a 170lb difference. Wanna switch engines and weights? DOUBT IT. :bash_1_:

Please just stop it with the conspiracy crap. You are killing any legitimacy of your posts. We WANT you to be comfortable and we undertand the concern...but let&#39;s keep the backhanded comments to a minimum.

AB

[gpeluso]

ANDY,

WHAT??
I am quoting BMW hp from an BMW engine builder.
Get it, BMW 2850 / 190 hp

RX7 (weight) /182 hp

tell me the RX7 weight.

Greg



So let me get this straight. You are quoting RX-7 WHP numbers on a car nobody has seen for more than 4 races, from a BMW engine builder?

I can&#39;t wait for all the RX-7 guys on this BB who have full-tilt Speedsource motors to comment on a 189-194whp 13B!!!! What do you think Bill D? Everyone else?

:lol:

AB
[/b]


ANDY,
Is there no advantage with the respect that RX7&#39;s can rev higher, I know you guys just ply in the high rpms to make up the difference. You drive these cars differently, can&#39;t you agree.

Greg



Care to consider the large brakes and HUGE torque advantage the BMW has? RX-7&#39;s make 128-130ftlbs at teh wheels. And it&#39;s a 170lb difference. Wanna switch engines and weights? DOUBT IT. :bash_1_:

Please just stop it with the conspiracy crap. You are killing any legitimacy of your posts. We WANT you to be comfortable and we undertand the concern...but let&#39;s keep the backhanded comments to a minimum.

AB
[/b]

[Andy Bettencourt]

ANDY,

WHAT??
I am quoting BMW hp from an BMW engine builder.
Get it, BMW 2850 / 190 hp

RX7 (weight) /182 hp

tell me the RX7 weight.

Greg
[/b]

I misread your post. When you said "his" engine, I thought you were talking about the to RX-7 at the ARRC. My bad.

Tell us who the engine builder is, what the extent of the development is AND if it has programmable fuel management. Qualify your data if you want us to validate it.

You know the RX-7 weight. We have dyno sheets from a BMW guy showing 195whp. IT IS THE LOWEST WE HAVE ON FILE. Top cars showing 210 with full, 100% developement. Why are you using only the numbers that serve your arguement? We are using numbers supplied by BMW owners.

The best vs. best caclulations have been done. 195 is a very good build. 210 is tops we have seen. 175 is an average Mazda build. 181 is as much as we have seen but have heard 182. The following are UNrestricted numbers.

195/2850 = 14.62
175/2680 = 15.31

or

210/2850 = 13.57
181/2680 = 14.81 (182/2680 = 14.73)





ANDY,
Is there no advantage with the respect that RX7&#39;s can rev higher, I know you guys just ply in the high rpms to make up the difference. You drive these cars differently, can&#39;t you agree.

Greg
[/b]

There may be some advantage, but it is track/gear dependent, not outright speed beneficial. If you you want speed, revving past your power peak is not gonna get you down the track. Holding a gear longer into a corner without shifting can have it&#39;s upside - but it is about smoothness and maybe a slightly better lap time, but it isn&#39;t about overall speed.

Re-read the account on the review of the Huffmaster RX-7 video. PULLED down the straight by an obscene amount of car lengths. Please don&#39;t use the example as to the equality, then discount the evidence that it lays the pipe to the RX-7 in terms of power.

AB

[gpeluso]

Andy,

If I told you that my new engine puts out 190 whp and this new restrictor would not affect me, I&#39;ll take it, but how do you know for sure. I just had a rebuild and I do not believe I even have that much but I want to think positive. I am going to a dyno Wed. to get my GTS sheet for NASA. Please make me believe I would have no restrictions. If the SIR only prevents top HP, why not make every ITS car have one, If your right it won&#39;t affect any other car at all. I feel better knowing all ITS people will have to shell out the $$ for this new device. $$ is an issue with some of us drivers.

Thanks
Greg



I misread your post. When you said "his" engine, I thought you were talking about the to RX-7 at the ARRC. My bad.

Tell us who the engine builder is, what the extent of the development is AND if it has programmable fuel management. Qualify your data if you want us to validate it.

You know the RX-7 weight. We have dyno sheets from a BMW guy showing 195whp. IT IS THE LOWEST WE HAVE ON FILE. Top cars showing 210 with full, 100% developement. Why are you using only the numbers that serve your arguement? We are using numbers supplied by BMW owners.

The best vs. best caclulations have been done. 195 is a very good build. 210 is tops we have seen. 175 is an average Mazda build. 181 is as much as we have seen but have heard 182.

195/2850 = 14.62
175/2680 = 15.31

or

210/2850 = 13.57
181/2680 = 14.81 (182/2680 = 14.73)
There may be some advantage, but it is track/gear dependent, not outright speed beneficial. If you you want speed, revving past your power peak is not gonna get you there down the track. Holding a gear longer into a corner without shifting can have it&#39;s upside.

Re-read the account on the review of the Huffmaster RX-7 video. PULLED down the straight by an obscene amount of car lengths. Please don&#39;t use the example as to the equality, then discount the evidence that it lays the pipe to the RX-7 in terms of power.

AB
[/b]

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

If I told you that my new engine puts out 190 whp and this new restrictor would not affect me, I&#39;ll take it, but how do you know for sure. I just had a rebuild and I do not believe I even have that much but I want to think positive. I am going to a dyno Wed. to get my GTS sheet for NASA. Please make me believe I would have no restrictions. If the SIR only prevents top HP, why not make every ITS car have one, If your right it won&#39;t affect any other car at all. I feel better knowing all ITS people will have to shell out the $$ for this new device. $$ is an issue with some of us drivers.

Thanks
Greg
[/b]

Your concerns have been noted and addressed ad-nausium in this thread. SIR&#39;s for all cars is an idea many BMW guys have thrown out there. I see no problem with it. Write into the CRB with the idea. Get it on the books.

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Andy,

If I told you that my new engine puts out 190 whp and this new restrictor would not affect me, I&#39;ll take it, but how do you know for sure. I just had a rebuild and I do not believe I even have that much but I want to think positive. I am going to a dyno Wed. to get my GTS sheet for NASA. Please make me believe I would have no restrictions. If the SIR only prevents top HP, why not make every ITS car have one, If your right it won&#39;t affect any other car at all. I feel better knowing all ITS people will have to shell out the $$ for this new device. $$ is an issue with some of us drivers.
Thanks
Greg
[/b]

Again Greg, You didn&#39;t give a crap about all the other cars that were spending tons of money just trying to stay on the same straight all these years. Did it matter to you that Z cars are having to buy new goodyears every weekend while the E36&#39;s have had the ability to run toyos for 4 and 5 weekends? Did it bother you that guys have continued to show up and get beat buy cars that were not as well prepped and not driven nearly as good. Forget SIR&#39;s for the whole class. That is not the answer. SIR&#39;s are to balance a class that needs balanced and nothing more. If new built Supra showed up and was actually built I would push for an SIR and a weight break for it. If it is proven that any other cars is outside the performance index of the class I woudl push for a restictor to bring balance. Forcing other cars to carry these things just because of some BS since of fair is not hte answer. The folks with carbs would have to spend 3 times the amount to built the crush proof carbon fiber box that you don&#39;t have to build because of you intake design. Lets get on with this. I am serious put the car on the dyno. Cut the air tube and add SIR to it and compare sheets. Below the restriction you should see little to no difference. I d not believe based on infor from GT cars that have tested you are have very little if any tuning to do. The thought I read on the bimmmer forum that speedsource will build a better SIR that will make more power is also silly IF the SIR does what it is supposed to then you are not going to build a better part than the raetech piece and yes I have actually had one in hand and got to remove all the parts on it to see.

[MikeBlaszczak]

Your concerns have been noted and addressed ad-nausium in this thread. SIR&#39;s for all cars is an idea many BMW guys have thrown out there. I see no problem with it. Write into the CRB with the idea. Get it on the books.
[/b]

Have they? I&#39;ve read the whole thread, even the rhetoric. But I didn&#39;t read anything that makes me sure that the SIR will not affect cars with less preparation.





Did it matter to you that Z cars are having to buy new goodyears every weekend while the E36&#39;s have had the ability to run toyos for 4 and 5 weekends?
[/b]
Yeah, it did. I wondered how guys could race those cars, with the technology being 30 years old and all. I thought that ITS was for recent cars, not vintage rigs. And that&#39;s why I wonder why the older cars aren&#39;t classified down over time.

[Joe Harlan]

Have they? I&#39;ve read the whole thread, even the rhetoric. But I didn&#39;t read anything that makes me sure that the SIR will not affect cars with less preparation.
Yeah, it did. I wondered how guys could race those cars, with the technology being 30 years old and all. I thought that ITS was for recent cars, not vintage rigs. And that&#39;s why I wonder why the older cars aren&#39;t classified down over time.
[/b]
Mike that is BS and you know it.
Cars from the previous four (4) model years and the current model year will
not be eligible. No car older than a 1968 model of any listed vehicle will be
accepted for Improved Touring competition. Turbocharged/Supercharged
cars are not eligible for Improved Touring competition. Cars need not be eligible for state license or registration.[/b]

Pretty clear what the intent of IT is. The Z cars that are beating you are some of the best prepped and driven cars on the west coast and by your own admission you are far from a developed package.

[gpeluso]

Is it Datsun or Datson, ITS BEEN SO LONG BEFORE THE BRAND NAME WAS EVEN MANUFACTURED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



ANDY,
DID YOU SAY "UNCLE"

LOOK, IF YOU WANT TO COME OFF AS THE EXPERT, DON&#39;T CRY LIKE ON BMW SITE THAT PEOPLE ARE ALL OVER YOU. I MEAN YOU POST ON ALMOST EVERY FRIGGIN TOPIC. I BET IF I WENT TO A "HOW TO BULID A SHED" WEBSITE YOU WOULD BE TELLING SOMEONE HOW YOU KNOW ALL. I THINK YOUR ARGUMENT WOULD JUSTIFY THAT "IT" DRIVERS TO USE THE SIR. BET MORE PEOPLE WILL BE PISSED. YOU WANTED TO RESPOND TO DAMN QUICK AND NOW ITS FALLING ON YOUR SHOULDERS.
WHEN DID THE &#39;94-&#39;95 MIATA GET CLASSED AS ITA? IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL SPOIL THE HONDA/ACURA&#39;S.

GREG

:smilie_pokal:

Mike that is BS and you know it.

Pretty clear what the intent of IT is. The Z cars that are beating you are some of the best prepped and driven cars on the west coast and by your own admission you are far from a developed package.
[/b]

[turboICE]

WHEN DID THE &#39;94-&#39;95 MIATA GET CLASSED AS ITA? IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL SPOIL THE HONDA/ACURA&#39;S.
[/b]
What is with all the YELLING?

Miata

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/05-10-fastrack.pdf

Discussed.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...c=5959&hl=Miata (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5959&hl=Miata)

Having gone through the process at classing (I believe) there shouldn&#39;t be any spoiling, just compeitition.

[dj10]

AB
I don&#39;t understand you point at all.
[/quote]

The people that have spent thousands of $ to develop their engines might as well just pissed that money away along with another $400 for the SIR. I also have a feeling that it will cost us alot more than $400 to get our engines running properly with the SIR.

[Bill Miller]

AB
I don&#39;t understand you point at all.
The people that have spent thousands of $ to develop their engines might as well just pissed that money away along with another $400 for the SIR. I also have a feeling that it will cost us alot more than $400 to get our engines running properly with the SIR.
[/b]


Well DJ, sounds like you guys would have preferred that 300# of lead.


What is with all the YELLING?[/b]

Because he&#39;s an idiot. :angry: :bash_1_:

[dj10]

Well DJ, sounds like you guys would have preferred that 300# of lead.
[/b]

Acutally Bill, I want to know I&#39;m going to spend $2,000 for the SIR and related development and not be running at 147 rwhp, which from a last minute decision, and from what I can see is only a hypotherotical situation for the BMW&#39;s. Bill if this effected you, would you want some more conclusive data?

[turboICE]

What are the details of this $2,000 budget?

I am trying to get my arms around how if there is no change in the mass of air entering the cylinder on the intake stroke at each rpm and load point until the sonic threshhold how you are going to need to spend additional money on the engine?

Other than physical fabrication for fit (one of the only honestly and sincerely posed querries in objection) where is all this need for additional development?

As I see it there are only a few rational explanations that fit the budget proposed?

The objector believes the air mass will be altered at points below the sonic treshhold requiring reoptimization on a dyno. In which case a whole lot of people who know fluid mechanics in application rather than theory and who are brighter than us, are wrong and you should submit a paper to a professional journal for peer review. In what manner has the flow been altered below the sonic threshhold - will VE be reduced in some manner or something else? Do you accept that air mass and flow are unaffected below the sonic threshhold?

If the objector accepts that the air mass is the same for each point beyond the sonic threshhold then there are two consequences which result in such a budget:

The objector was reliant on the HP peak which is going to be sheared off and feels there was area below that point which could receive additional attention to capture some of those losses. Not a problem for ITAC, CRB or BOD - the car had not been fully developed, the SIR did not cause that underdevelopment and the points below the cutoff have been unaffected.

The objector believes the sonic threshhold cutoff is lower than the target the process suggests. I have to believe this is something that would be addressed if shown to be the case. Would it be the first time there has been a rule mistake/correct by a sanctioning body that costs competitors, hardly. Its a fact of racing at all levels from the highest levels to solo 2.

So, which is your objection? The science is wrong? There are undeveloped aspects of your build which you are going to have to now address? The cutoff is going to be lower than the process suggested? Or do you believe the process has the wrong target? If the last one - then the E36 is the only model where there is any large belief in this. For myself I have to believe that the largest adjustments are the ones the ITAC put the most effort on. Whether through weight or SIR I have a high degree of confidence that the E36 target received the most review, thought and discussion.

[steve s]

:bash_1_: since the SIR is to restrict power at the top end .and there seems to be a target HP in ITS, then why not require all ITS cars to require them and level the playing field. hp wise, then adjust weight by your formula????so all car would have the same formula for speed and competetiveness in this class????wouldn&#39;t this solve all the bickering between mazdas &bmws & datsuns???
from what i see everyone is looking at 1 or 2 bmws and the rest of the bmw field is suffering for this . but then look at the ARRC 1 rx7 was all over the bmwand within .1 of a second of the bmw why didn&#39;t all the rx7&#39;s out there not prepare like this :023: guy did??? maybe you all should suffer because of this guy.just my .02 cents.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Is it Datsun or Datson, ITS BEEN SO LONG BEFORE THE BRAND NAME WAS EVEN MANUFACTURED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ANDY,
DID YOU SAY "UNCLE"

LOOK, IF YOU WANT TO COME OFF AS THE EXPERT, DON&#39;T CRY LIKE ON BMW SITE THAT PEOPLE ARE ALL OVER YOU. I MEAN YOU POST ON ALMOST EVERY FRIGGIN TOPIC. I BET IF I WENT TO A "HOW TO BULID A SHED" WEBSITE YOU WOULD BE TELLING SOMEONE HOW YOU KNOW ALL. I THINK YOUR ARGUMENT WOULD JUSTIFY THAT "IT" DRIVERS TO USE THE SIR. BET MORE PEOPLE WILL BE PISSED. YOU WANTED TO RESPOND TO DAMN QUICK AND NOW ITS FALLING ON YOUR SHOULDERS.
WHEN DID THE &#39;94-&#39;95 MIATA GET CLASSED AS ITA? IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL SPOIL THE HONDA/ACURA&#39;S.

GREG

:smilie_pokal:
[/b]

Nope, I simply said that everything you are bringing up has been discussed. Take some time to read.

I have no problem with anyone being all over me - as long as they are willing to stop and look at teh big picture.

Please seperate the CRB and the ITAC. Do us all a favor.

The Miata will do nothing of the sort, it is just another LEGITIMATE option in ITA now. ITA is the best class in terms of balance right now.

You are starting to sound like you don&#39;t want to hear what we all know to be true.

AB

[turboICE]

since the SIR is to restrict power at the top end .and there seems to be a target HP in ITS, then why not require all ITS cars to require them and level the playing field. hp wise, then adjust weight by your formula????so all car would have the same formula for speed and competetiveness in this class????[/b]

I think that understates and simplifies the issue.

If all other popular cars are limited within the ruleset to power that can be managed by weight alone why add the restriction. Everyone knows that fully prepared IT legal E36 was able to generate power beyond that expected when it was classed and would result in an undesirable total weight. The reason not to slap SIRs on all cars was expressed very clearly - the weight necessary to balance their power was reasonable.

As I see it the only option over the SIR was to kick the E36 out of IT as being beyond the range IT currently supports. This could have either been done by burdening the car with so much weight there would be no desire to field one or to explicitly remove it from classing. While SIRs may discourage some from participating I think the decision that was made provides the best solution for this car that were it being asked to be classed for the first time today might not have been listed at all.

I think it is unfair to characterize those who made the decision as anything but forthright - I think those who made the conclusion were pained to make it, but were sincerely looking to the good for all participants. A decision to just throw weight at the issue would have had much more dire circumstances, one supra example jeez weight does matter people.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don&#39;t know Ed. Declassifying the is the last thing to do, adding &#39;enough&#39; weight so that people stop running it is not an option either.

There are two options:
1. Run it through the process that all the other cars have been through, and set it&#39;s weight without a restrictor - like the other cars.
2. Restrict it enough so that it fits the &#39;prcess&#39; in a backward manner - given a fixed weight target, not a fixed power/weight target.

The most &#39;fair&#39; thing - for the class - to do is to have it weigh what it should. The most &#39;fair&#39; thing for E36 drivers is to put an SIR on it at 2850. They get to keep the gift race weight, all the awesome torque but chop off the power that would seperate it from the pack.

I understand the issues with both ideas...what is the best and most fair idea?

AB

[dj10]

Answer me this: Why is it only BMW guys can&#39;t see there is a problem to address?
AB
[/b]

I think most BMW racer are ticked because the so called solution is over simpified and expensive poorly timed and hypothetical. I&#39;m willing to try anything, I just don&#39;t want it to be unnecessary, make me uncompetitive and expensive. I&#39;m sure if the shoe was on the other foot you would agree. The restrictor plate was costly when you figured in travel, dyno time and special chips burnt. Why would this be any different? Before you answer this.....call a BMW engine builder and ask them. As for myself I&#39;m not mad at anyone as much as I am disappointed in the process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think most BMW racer are ticked because the so called solution is over simpified and expensive poorly timed and hypothetical. I&#39;m willing to try anything, I just don&#39;t want it to be unnecessary, make me uncompetitive and expensive. I&#39;m sure if the shoe was on the other foot you would agree. The restrictor plate was costly when you figured in travel, dyno time and special chips burnt. Why would this be any different? Before you answer this.....call a BMW engine builder and ask them. As for myself I&#39;m not mad at anyone as much as I am disappointed in the process.
[/b]

While I understand you 100%, and I sympathise, you have to understand that this &#39;oversimplified&#39; process is the same for everyone. No slight of hand, no juggling act - the S _ A _ M _ E.

Write in and tell them what you want - SIR or weight. Don&#39;t be dissapointed unless the SIR fails you. Right now, give the CRB the benefit of the doubt - it&#39;s not black magic here. If I were concerned about development costs, I would just ask them to ditch the SIR and run me through the process. 3200 is what it will come to.

AB

[turboICE]

I don&#39;t know Ed. Declassifying the is the last thing to do, adding &#39;enough&#39; weight so that people stop running it is not an option either.[/b]
Clearly undesirable, unpracticable and probably not considered. Exhibiting by extreme that there wasn&#39;t much other choice than the SIR at this point. I would have bought a DOHC two years ago until I was hammered :bash_1_: into understanding that there was no ITS at that time just club E36. And I spend enough on my street E30 iX without trying to race the BMW marque.

[lateapex911]

Jake,

Congats!!!!! If you are pointing your finger at a cheater here and not at the track at SCCA events.[/b]

I&#39;m not sure what you mean here, as the grammer has lost me, but I&#39;ll live dangerously and try to respond.
First, my quote said, "I won&#39;t say he&#39;s cheating, but you CAN"T base a case on ONE guy at ONE race!..."

Substitute "...not going to..", or "I&#39;m not saying.." for "won&#39;t" if you like.

The point of that statement, which I can&#39;t believe I have to spell out yet again, and even more clearly, is that we are basing a system that relies on empirical numbers to create a product. We DON&#39;T go to the track, look at who won that day, and say, "Yup, better slap some weight on the Sprazter Flyby R". And the actual point of the statement is that individual results themselves, much less ONE car, aren&#39;t representative of the actual trend. Look, go back to any of a zillion threads on the PCA concept and process if you really are truly interested in the backgound and the "whys" to the process.

Now, if you are calling me out for not protesting him at the event, here&#39;s a few reasons for you to choose from:
-I wasn&#39;t an entrant there.
-I don&#39;t know how he might have been cheating
-And I NEVER said he WAS cheating!
:119:

Again, I was merely pointing out that ONE car can&#39;t be used as a valid argument, especially for a numbers based system!



You are ruining the argument that a BMW is clearly an overgog. The way I look at it is this gentlemen showing us the full potential of the RX7. Great place to call someone a cheater and give absolutely now evidence![/b]

Again, either adjust your reading glasses, slow down and actually comprehend and think about what you are reading, or just stop putting words in my mouth. Whatever works for you, just do it. See above comments regarding my NOT calling the car illegal.


By the way, I am looking at the numbers based on what Andy supplied(And you know his RX7 is slower than the one we are talking about) . When I talked to one of the best BMW engine builders he claimed his engine s were putting out between 189-194hp. Isn&#39;t the BMW weight more than the RX7. I&#39;m lost, where is the hole you speak of.[/b]

Hmmmmm....should I??

OK...I better not.

The "hole" I spoke of doesn&#39;t, in my mind, exist. YOU need to find it. If there is a legitimate problem with the process, find it and write up a COHERANT letter, and send it on in to the ITAC for consideration.

IF you understood Any&#39;s numbers, then your response would make sense. Is your figure WHP? CHP? What build level is that? Again, your nuber is one data point, and not even a legitimate one as the specifics are unknown. Refer to Andy&#39;s post for the larger picture.


By the way, while your at it ,who else are you calling a cheater!
Greg

:023:
[/b]

:rolleyes: grow up, debate the facts, and stop fabricating the truth and twisting others words..

[dj10]

Don&#39;t be dissapointed unless the SIR fails you. Right now, give the CRB the benefit of the doubt - it&#39;s not black magic here.
AB
[/b]

Don&#39;t worry, you will know if it works or not and if the costs justify the means.

[lateapex911]

Ed&#39;s points are very well made.

But, just for giggles, I&#39;ll ask interested parties to vote in a new thread/poll, which I will call, "The E36 solution"....

[Bill Miller]

I think most BMW racer are ticked because the so called solution is over simpified and expensive poorly timed and hypothetical.[/b]

So get together w/ the rest of the E36 drivers and write to the CRB and tell them that you want the 300# of lead! Doesn&#39;t get much simpler than that, can be installed in about an hour, will probably cost <$100, and it&#39;s a pretty safe bet as to what the impact will be.

I&#39;m really sick of your whining dj. You throw numbers like $2000 costs and 146 whp around w/ less information than you lambast the CRB and ITAC for not using. You don&#39;t want lead, you don&#39;t want an SIR, you just want to keep running at the front w/ a mediocre effort. You know what, go race w/ NASA.

The E36 drivers got special treatment w/ the SIR, rather than having to race at their process spec weight, like everyone else. Yet these guys want more.

To the ITAC, I&#39;m really sorry that you guys ever floated the idea of the SIR to the CRB. These guys should have gotten their 300# of lead, and this thread would have died after 3 pages!

[gpeluso]

I have a secret...I know this guy...he cheats. But he hasn&#39;t been caught. So does that make him legal? NO! Why hasn&#39;t he been caught you ask? Because nobody has bothered to protest him...usually there aren&#39;t enough engine peices still assembled to each other after a race to base a protest on!

Listen...use some logic. Not getting caught does NOT equal legality!

And it&#39;s all BS anyway....this isn&#39;t about results, its about a numerical process.

Shoot logical, well founded holes in the process, and you will make ground.
[/b]

[Joe Harlan]

So get together w/ the rest of the E36 drivers and write to the CRB and tell them that you want the 300# of lead! Doesn&#39;t get much simpler than that, can be installed in about an hour, will probably cost <$100, and it&#39;s a pretty safe bet as to what the impact will be.

I&#39;m really sick of your whining dj. You throw numbers like $2000 costs and 146 whp around w/ less information than you lambast the CRB and ITAC for not using. You don&#39;t want lead, you don&#39;t want an SIR, you just want to keep running at the front w/ a mediocre effort. You know what, go race w/ NASA.

The E36 drivers got special treatment w/ the SIR, rather than having to race at their process spec weight, like everyone else. Yet these guys want more.

To the ITAC, I&#39;m really sorry that you guys ever floated the idea of the SIR to the CRB. These guys should have gotten their 300# of lead, and this thread would have died after 3 pages!
[/b]
So Bill, What make you so sure the ITAC floated the idae to the CRB first....?

I will ask this question for all you folks that say 3100 lbs would be a piece of cake. Have you every raced a car over 3000 lbs? I have and I have done it recently. 3368 with driver and 8.5 inch wide wheels.
245 40 18&#39;s even with that much tire the car is giving up about 12 mins into a race. SIR&#39;s are here to stay and I for one am all for it. And the argument that weight would be easier is complete BS. You can safely mount your SIR without fear of it flying around in the drivers compartment. The Sir is not going to double your tire brake and bering budget in the first 3 races. Lastly the SIR will reduce your operrating costing by lowering usable rev rage of your motor...All the the additional sniveling is just that sniveling. Again I have made the real offer of half day of shop service and help with proper install on the first car to ask. Anybody else done anything other than bitch about this deal. Lets get it on and get to racing.

DJ I don&#39;t need to call a bimmer engine builder. I build all kinds of different engines. They all have something in common. The more air you give them the more power they can make. Take air away and the reverse happens.

[Fastfred92]

I think the SIR is fine and dandy if it works as billed, but make this thing go away by simply adding a SIR on the Mazda sized to its magical hp limit ( I think I have seen 200 or 210 hp floated around here).. This problem will go away as the "perfect" ITS car will have a absolute max output as well. Slowly add SIR&#39;s ( using the "process" numbers) to ITS cars that seem to come out of nowhere then. Eventually ITS will have a legit hp ceiling....

[Joe Harlan]

I think the SIR is fine and dandy if it works as billed, but make this thing go away by simply adding a SIR on the Mazda sized to its magical hp limit ( I think I have seen 200 or 210 hp floated around here).. This problem will go away as the "perfect" ITS car will have a absolute max output as well. Slowly add SIR&#39;s ( using the "process" numbers) to ITS cars that seem to come out of nowhere then. Eventually ITS will have a legit hp ceiling....
[/b]
Fred, you are on the money here. I for one would be the first to lead the charge on any car that showed it was outside the performance index of the class. I don&#39;t see the RZ7 as being there but I could be proved wrong with some solid info. If that were the case I would be allover writing letters to help with that.

[Bill Miller]

So Bill, What make you so sure the ITAC floated the idae to the CRB first....?

I will ask this question for all you folks that say 3100 lbs would be a piece of cake. Have you every raced a car over 3000 lbs? I have and I have done it recently. 3368 with driver and 8.5 inch wide wheels.
245 40 18&#39;s even with that much tire the car is giving up about 12 mins into a race. SIR&#39;s are here to stay and I for one am all for it. And the argument that weight would be easier is complete BS. You can safely mount your SIR without fear of it flying around in the drivers compartment. The Sir is not going to double your tire brake and bering budget in the first 3 races. Lastly the SIR will reduce your operrating costing by lowering usable rev rage of your motor...All the the additional sniveling is just that sniveling. Again I have made the real offer of half day of shop service and help with proper install on the first car to ask. Anybody else done anything other than bitch about this deal. Lets get it on and get to racing.

DJ I don&#39;t need to call a bimmer engine builder. I build all kinds of different engines. They all have something in common. The more air you give them the more power they can make. Take air away and the reverse happens.
[/b]


Joe,

I never said they floated the idea first, but someone on the ITAC (I forget if it was Andy, Jake, or Darin) said that they gave two options to the CRB, weight or the SIR. And I hope you didn&#39;t take my previous comments to mean that I was saying that 300# of lead was a &#39;piece of cake&#39;. What I was saying was, that in light of dj&#39;s thoughts on implementing the SIR, lead will surely address all his concerns.

[Joe Harlan]

Kool, I think it has been stated several times that the ITAC wanted straight weight last year with no mention of a restrictor.. The CRB broke that ground on their own. SO if you were on the current would you not be looking into the best option for the competitors that the CRB would accept? I think these guys did the right thing getting in front of the CRB and not giving them the chance to screw it up twice. B)

[Bill Miller]

Kool, I think it has been stated several times that the ITAC wanted straight weight last year with no mention of a restrictor.. The CRB broke that ground on their own. SO if you were on the current would you not be looking into the best option for the competitors that the CRB would accept? I think these guys did the right thing getting in front of the CRB and not giving them the chance to screw it up twice. B)
[/b]


That&#39;s just it Joe, they gave them more than one option. I&#39;ll have to dig back through the threads, but IIRC, one of the ITAC members said they recommended lead. We all know you&#39;re in favor of SIR technology, but stating that it is the &#39;best&#39; solution for the competitors is just so much editorializing.

I guess we&#39;ll probably never know why they got the restrictor instead of lead last year. Would like to, but probably won&#39;t. There are a few rumors floating around, but that&#39;s all they are.

[dickita15]

I think the SIR is fine and dandy if it works as billed, but make this thing go away by simply adding a SIR on the Mazda sized to its magical hp limit [/b]

My guess is that it would not make this argument go away but would insted just shift it to a disagreement on the size of the restricter.

[Fastfred92]

My guess is that it would not make this argument go away but would insted just shift it to a disagreement on the size of the restricter.
[/b]


If my understanding of SIR technology is right the sizing should be pure math, the SIR should only limit max airflow (i.e. hp ) and have no effect otherwise. If the engineer wants a absoulte max of XXX hp then that should be a simple task,,,, the board sure sold it for the BMW guys that way. I also think that SCCA would do well to spot check at a few events this year by renting a chassis dyno and checking a few front runners.. I think the SIR thing can work but I do feel that it is somewhat unfair to saddle one car with a absolute hp ceiling without regard for ultimate level of development and not do the same for the others. I look at the SIR much the same as I do weight in that it is set number, all cars have a set weight and if some have a set hp then all should... It would also greatly reduce the cost of SIR&#39;s

My .02

[ITANorm]

I have a somewhat novel solution - only in the fact that with all the bitching and whining and finger-pointing and paranoia it hasn&#39;t been suggested . . .

How about an either / or option for the E36? SIR and 2850#, or no SIR and 3150#. Put it in the "Notes" like the factory aero package on the MR2&#39;s, and let the driver choose. It would even give &#39;em the option of swapping back and forth depending on the track and their pocketbook (and cash will always win over no cash).


While you&#39;re at it - and I realize it&#39;s on-topic, but this seems to have turned into a "my BMW got robbed" thread . . .

According to the ITAC modeling formula, a well prepped ITA MR2 should be plunking down ~122 RWHP. I&#39;ll make somebody a cash proposal. I&#39;ll pay you $5000 for that motor, if you can do it, legally, reliably, and repeatably, on an accurate dyno. I&#39;ve got WAY more than that invested in my drivetrain, built by one of the best on the Continent - and I&#39;m nowhere near that, nor is anyone else I know of.

[Fastfred92]

According to the ITAC modeling formula, a well prepped ITA MR2 should be plunking down ~122 RWHP. I&#39;ll make somebody a cash proposal. I&#39;ll pay you $5000 for that motor, if you can do it, legally, reliably, and repeatably, on an accurate dyno. I&#39;ve got WAY more than that invested in my drivetrain, built by one of the best on the Continent - and I&#39;m nowhere near that, nor is anyone else I know of.
[/b]

My guess is that most of the BMW guys are nowhere near the boards 240 plus hp either......... that is my point (and I am not bitching and whining as I dont own a BMW race car anymore ) "model or process or whatever the hp/weight the board wants they SIR each car to its ceiling hp for given weight and BAM[b] everybody has hp/weight ratio and then chassis and driver will make a bigger impact...

[turboICE]

My guess is that most of the BMW guys are nowhere near the boards 240 plus hp either......... that is my point[/b]
But it isn&#39;t a valid point. IT classing is based on IT legal potential, not on what competitors choose to field or not. Though the repetitive fielding of levels of performance can definitely cause the revisiting of what potential had been assumed in classing.

For there to be a valid argument here, the argument would have to be that the potential does not exist to build an IT legal motor in excess of the HP targetted in this decision.

The questions to be asked and that can be validly argued in this decision are far more limited than people are willing to acknowledge:

Is classing based on potential?

Are potentials fairly determined?

Are potentials fairly balanced?

What means are available to balance potential?

Which means are preferred to balance potential?

If a nonpreferred means to balance potential is to be used what are justifiable reasons for doing so?

On an assumption that the first three are yes (which can be argued but I assume that the decision started with a yes to those questions) - the answers to the last three that guided the decision to add an SIR to the E36 and not other cars can be as follows:

Weight and power.

Weight.

Power is grudgingly used to balance potential when the weight necessary to adjust potential is unreasonable. (And RPs were determined both to be ineffective and to the detriment of areas not desired to be affected.)

No decision was made that the ITAC or CRB has any desire to get into the regular practice of balancing potential through power - they viewed it as a choice of necessity. I can&#39;t find it now but somewhere, someone with inside knowledge of the decision communicated that this decision was not one that would have been desired were it not that the E36 in ITS is an anomoly.

With the process as has been communicated the only valid way to add an SIR to another car would be to establish that it has a potential above its assigned weight and that adding weight to balance it would be unreasonable. What other car has the potential to generate in IT legal form HP in excess of its assigned weight and to add weight to it in response would not be reasonable? Lacking those conditions it has been communicated that overall SIRs are not viewed as desirable in IT - but rather a matter of necessity in addressing an IT anomoly.

IMO there has to be people who regret this car was ever classed in IT at all. It has been shown that its legal potential is beyond ITS intended ranges.

[Bill Miller]

Ed,

One of the problems I see w/ your theory, is how do you define &#39;unreasonable&#39;? Given the curb weight of an E36 325is, I don&#39;t believe 3150# is &#39;unreasonable&#39;. Is it because it would require 300# of lead? If so, that&#39;s a convenient little catch-22. The car got spec&#39;d at a weight that was way too light, but now you can&#39;t add the weight to get it to where it should be, because it&#39;s &#39;unreasonable&#39;.

[turboICE]

Certainly whether or not the necessary weight is "reasonable" is an area wide open to argument, err discussion. In making a decision where weight was the preferred answer presented and that SIR was selected, I assume that the decision makers made a determination that it was beyond reasonable. But still could be argued that they were wrong. Don&#39;t know that it would help though.

I am not sure that the theory expressed (which is definitely an uninformed opinion) becomes invalidated by having points of subjectivity that are arguable.

We certainly are left without an ability to repeat decisions when something as subjective as reasonable is involved. A group made of different members could validly have a completely different view of reasonable - unless someone wants to give us some quantifications but I couldn&#39;t deduce a bright line test for reasonable in this instance.

As communicated I presume they felt the weight was unreasonable - a differing view can certainly be reasonably held. Though I haven&#39;t heard anyone with an E36 say that adding the weight was reasonable and what they should have done instead.

What I see as underlying most arguments if I try to dig for them is a desire not to be classified at potential but rather classified as that individual brings their car to the track in essence many of those in opposition are saying "I don&#39;t make over X HP, so ignore the potential and leave me alone." or alternatively "Stop picking on me and put a nonpreferred solution on everybody whether it is needed for balance potential or not."

[Bill Miller]

I assume that the decision makers made a determination that it was beyond reasonable. [/b]

Certainly possible, but I&#39;d like to know what criteria it was based on.


I&#39;d like to submit a hypothetical situation. This is directed to the folks on the ITAC.

If a request to classify the &#39;95 Puddlebee GTR was submitted, with the following specs, where would it fall, and what would the spec weight be?

2.5 liter I-6 DOHC EFI VVT
189 hp / 180 lb-ft
10.5:1, IRS, close-ratio 5-spd, 4-wheel disc (287mmF/280mmR)

[Fastfred92]

Bill that would depend, is that a Mazda / Honda puddlebee or the famous BMW / Porsche puddlebee ? :)

[zracre]

I hope the puddlebee gets a classified weight...it will be interesting to see what the scca machine thinks its ideal weight is. we cant put a manufacturer name on it...that would be prejudice...lets say it is a toyonda...toyotas are historically way too heavy for IT and the hondas are looked upon as overdogs. evens it out

[Andy Bettencourt]

Certainly possible, but I&#39;d like to know what criteria it was based on.
I&#39;d like to submit a hypothetical situation. This is directed to the folks on the ITAC.

If a request to classify the &#39;95 Puddlebee GTR was submitted, with the following specs, where would it fall, and what would the spec weight be?

2.5 liter I-6 DOHC EFI VVT
189 hp / 180 lb-ft
10.5:1, IRS, close-ratio 5-spd, 4-wheel disc (287mmF/280mmR)
[/b]

RWD or FWD? Design of the suspension - Double wishbone or Struts?

[Bill Miller]

RWD or FWD? Design of the suspension - Double wishbone or Struts?
[/b]

RWD w/ struts.

[robits325is]

Is it shaped like a brick or a bullet?

[Knestis]

RWD or FWD? Design of the suspension - Double wishbone or Struts?
[/b]

The interesting thing about the Toyonda Puddlebee GTR is that 1995 was a transitional year. They made two versions of the car with the same engine - one FWD with struts (it was a packaging nightmare), and one RWD with a wishbone front suspension. We&#39;ll need to list both.

There was also the GTR4, that was AWD but that isn&#39;t eligible for IT.

K

[Ron Earp]

Dang, seems like to me for anything with those specs to race in ITS it&#39;d have to weight about 3175 lbs or so. Hmmm......

[Bill Miller]

The interesting thing about the Toyonda Puddlebee GTR is that 1995 was a transitional year. They made two versions of the car with the same engine - one FWD with struts (it was a packaging nightmare), and one RWD with a wishbone front suspension. We&#39;ll need to list both.

There was also the GTR4, that was AWD but that isn&#39;t eligible for IT.

K
[/b]


Get your own damn car!!!! :P B) :023:

[gpeluso]

Andy,

The hp/wieght you described is a little misleading. First of all when you are talking about the better RX7 builds , are you refferring to a motec type system or just a good build.? The reason I bring that up is because a very good BMW build without motec is around 195hp. If you truely are comparing the two there pretty equal. According to your math you used a very good build BMW vs. an average RX7 build. I don&#39;t see the apple to apple comparision. I Think 195hp w/o motec is a greeeeeeat build. According to your math, BMW&#39;s should not be restricted to less than 195whp to be considered even with a very good RX7 build. The BMW should not be limited to a hp compared to an average RX7 build, beacause there would be potential still left for the RX7. This is ofcourse using the existing weights of the two cars, just as you did. This is coming from a guy who can not afford motec and is hoping his new build is even close to 190whp, but I have a feeling its not.(I&#39;ll know Wednesday.)

Please Consider This,

Greg



I misread your post. When you said "his" engine, I thought you were talking about the to RX-7 at the ARRC. My bad.

Tell us who the engine builder is, what the extent of the development is AND if it has programmable fuel management. Qualify your data if you want us to validate it.

You know the RX-7 weight. We have dyno sheets from a BMW guy showing 195whp. IT IS THE LOWEST WE HAVE ON FILE. Top cars showing 210 with full, 100% developement. Why are you using only the numbers that serve your arguement? We are using numbers supplied by BMW owners.

The best vs. best caclulations have been done. 195 is a very good build. 210 is tops we have seen. 175 is an average Mazda build. 181 is as much as we have seen but have heard 182. The following are UNrestricted numbers.

195/2850 = 14.62
175/2680 = 15.31

or

210/2850 = 13.57
181/2680 = 14.81 (182/2680 = 14.73)
There may be some advantage, but it is track/gear dependent, not outright speed beneficial. If you you want speed, revving past your power peak is not gonna get you down the track. Holding a gear longer into a corner without shifting can have it&#39;s upside - but it is about smoothness and maybe a slightly better lap time, but it isn&#39;t about overall speed.

Re-read the account on the review of the Huffmaster RX-7 video. PULLED down the straight by an obscene amount of car lengths. Please don&#39;t use the example as to the equality, then discount the evidence that it lays the pipe to the RX-7 in terms of power.

AB
[/b]

[Knestis]

195whp ITS Mazda? Seriously? (EDIT - no, I don&#39;t think that&#39;s what you were saying after all. Never mind.)

Even if it is possible, it would be interesting to compare the areas under the curve on that dyno sheet, compared to a "195whp" straight 6 with variable valve timing.

K

[Joe Harlan]

195whp ITS Mazda? Seriously? (EDIT - no, I don&#39;t think that&#39;s what you were saying after all. Never mind.)

Even if it is possible, it would be interesting to compare the areas under the curve on that dyno sheet, compared to a "195whp" straight 6 with variable valve timing.

K
[/b]

I think I would like to see that one also... B)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

The hp/wieght you described is a little misleading. First of all when you are talking about the better RX7 builds , are you refferring to a motec type system or just a good build.? The reason I bring that up is because a very good BMW build without motec is around 195hp. If you truely are comparing the two there pretty equal. According to your math you used a very good build BMW vs. an average RX7 build. I don&#39;t see the apple to apple comparision. I Think 195hp w/o motec is a greeeeeeat build. According to your math, BMW&#39;s should not be restricted to less than 195whp to be considered even with a very good RX7 build. The BMW should not be limited to a hp compared to an average RX7 build, beacause there would be potential still left for the RX7. This is ofcourse using the existing weights of the two cars, just as you did. This is coming from a guy who can not afford motec and is hoping his new build is even close to 190whp, but I have a feeling its not.(I&#39;ll know Wednesday.)

Please Consider This,

Greg
[/b]

Be average, I meant excellent w/respect to the RX-7, no programmable fuel managament. It&#39;s easy to do an excellent build on an RX-7 - it ain&#39;t easy or cheap to find that last 7-ish hp.

If your build is less than 190whp, you will have a strong car, but you have left a lot on the table compared to what is out there.

I takes time and money to run at the front of ITS. Good luck! I am trying to do the same in ITA.

[MikeBlaszczak]

Mike that is BS and you know it.[/b]

I do? Around here, Vintage racing is cars from 1970 or newer; plus newer cars that are voted in or approved (by some process that I&#39;m not familiar with). As far as I know, a 1969 car would go straight to grid.




Pretty clear what the intent of IT is. [/b] Well, it was -- until it was changed.

[lateapex911]

Have they? I&#39;ve read the whole thread, even the rhetoric. But I didn&#39;t read anything that makes me sure that the SIR will not affect cars with less preparation.[/b]

Mike, if thats your issue, it&#39;s not much of an issue...why does it really matter? Think about it. The big issue that the membership sees with this specific change is that the E36 has gotten a break, as the alternative, weight would most surely affect ALL cars, and most likely, the lesser developed cars would feel the pinch worse.


Yeah, it did. I wondered how guys could race those cars, with the technology being 30 years old and all. I thought that ITS was for recent cars, not vintage rigs. And that&#39;s why I wonder why the older cars aren&#39;t classified down over time.
[/b]

Where did you get the idea ITS was for new cars displacing older? The philosophy, intent and ruleset is categorywide, each class operates under the same set of goals. Nowhere has it ever been said ...not now, not ever that I am aware of, that the classes were unique. The "trickle down" approach is rife with pitfalls.

[MikeBlaszczak]

Mike, if thats your issue, it&#39;s not much of an issue...[/b]

Thank you for your friendliness and understanding.



why does it really matter? Think about it. The big issue that the membership sees with this specific change is that the E36 has gotten a break, as the alternative, weight would most surely affect ALL cars, and most likely, the lesser developed cars would feel the pinch worse. [/b]

Sure. But you&#39;re still not answering my original question.



Where did you get the idea ITS was for new cars displacing older? [...] The "trickle down" approach is rife with pitfalls.
[/b]

I didn&#39;t get that idea -- I just don&#39;t see how not adjusting for newer technology is a sustainable design.

Fewer pitfalls than trying to keep downright ancient cars in balanced competition with newer designs, engineering techniques, and modern technology?

[Joe Harlan]

Thank you for your friendliness and understanding.
Sure. But you&#39;re still not answering my original question.
I didn&#39;t get that idea -- I just don&#39;t see how not adjusting for newer technology is a sustainable design.Fewer pitfalls than trying to keep downright ancient cars in balanced competition with newer designs, engineering techniques, and modern technology?
[/b]

So Mike , You don&#39;t see where using technology to balance the class is not adjusting to newer equipment?

[Knestis]

... I wondered how guys could race those cars, with the technology being 30 years old and all. I thought that ITS was for recent cars, not vintage rigs. And that&#39;s why I wonder why the older cars aren&#39;t classified down over time. [/b]

That&#39;s NOT a completely unreasonable question. The truth of the matter though is that the reason it LOOKS like older cars should shuffle down to slower classes, is that the mean performance of any given class inches upward over time. That&#39;s one manifestation of what we broadly talk about as "rules creep."

The dynamic is that, as a new model of car is listed, it is either (1) generally slower, (2) about the same as, or (3) a little faster than the cars already in the class. More people tend to build the faster options because they want to be competitive - and a few build them really well, to be in front of those up front. As new cars get listed, the same thing happens over again. Showroom Stock C is faster now than SSA was when Greg went to the RubOffs (back when Moses still had his novice permit).

It&#39;s like natural selection, if you buy that load of crap, too. ;) Critters that for what ever reason can&#39;t compete, don&#39;t get as much of a chance to pass on their characteristics through genetic procreation. Cars that can&#39;t compete don&#39;t get built (or built well, generally), and get replaced in the food chain by those that can and are.

It&#39;s this dynamic that the ITAC has to wrestle with constantly. Maybe the "design" of the e36 is just so "intelligent" that it doesn&#39;t follow those same rules...?

K

[Greg Amy]

Showroom Stock C is faster now than SSA was when Greg went to the RubOffs (back when Moses still had his novice permit).[/b]
What that a &#39;dis&#39;? &#39;Cause I got &#39;dissed&#39; once before and this sure seems a lot like that...

[Bill Miller]

Kirk&#39;s right, technology evolves. And while some people have marque or model loyalty, a large portion of people will build those cars that have an advantage. It just so happens that a lot of time there is an alignment between the popular cars (from a marque/model loyalty perspective), and the ones that people want to build. And the ability of the popular cars, is certainly one of the things that contributes to their popularity.

For those of you that are old enough to remember, what was the approx. ratio of FI cars to carbed cars, for say the 1980 model year? And, what was the price point of those cars w/ FI? Now, what is that ratio today (does anybody even sell a carbed car anymore???)?

But, one can only speculate how many E36 cars there would be, had they been spec&#39;d at 3100 - 3150#. I would say that the number of 3rd gen. Supras on the track is a pretty fair gauge.

Kirk&#39;s right, technology evolves. And while some people have marque or model loyalty, a large portion of people will build those cars that have an advantage. It just so happens that a lot of time there is an alignment between the popular cars (from a marque/model loyalty perspective), and the ones that people want to build. And the ability of the popular cars, is certainly one of the things that contributes to their popularity.

For those of you that are old enough to remember, what was the approx. ratio of FI cars to carbed cars, for say the 1980 model year? And, what was the price point of those cars w/ FI? Now, what is that ratio today (does anybody even sell a carbed car anymore???)?

But, one can only speculate how many E36 cars there would be, had they been spec&#39;d at 3100 - 3150#. I would say that the number of 3rd gen. Supras on the track is a pretty fair gauge.

[lateapex911]

Well, the general progression of the auto industry has been to make faster cars that are still somewhat efficient. Technology has had a big role in that, obviously. But...

Technolgy can be accounted for in classing, to some degree, and if the system works correctly, the cars are classed where they belong ...where they will perform to match the parameteres of the class once they are fully developed.

We can rehash what happened with the E36, but it&#39;s a long story, and the current process that is in use now, wasn&#39;t back when the E36 was classified.

But the bigger question here is really, what to do with the general trend? IF cars are getting faster, (and they are) how much can we artificially slow them to fit in the existing classes at the existing performance envelopes?

At some point, and I would submit that we are close to it now, if not already there, we may start not being able to class cars without overly handicapping them. Or rejecting classification requests. If the trend continues, a new class, with a higher performance envelope potential must be considered.

[zracre]

cars will always get faster and more efficient...even if the iron gets old, the rubber and bolt on bits get newer...making the older stuff keeep up. but eventually even the 325is will be a cool vintage car to someone...what then?? the 2118 Toyonda puddlebee will be whipping its butt!! people will complain that the 325 is not fast enough and needs a weight break!! this is racing and it will never end! :happy204:

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

I agree w/ you 110%! :023:

Evan,

Boy isn&#39;t that the truth. Just look at tire technology today, vs 15-20 years ago. Back then, there weren&#39;t a whole lot of choices for &#39;track&#39; DOT tires. Yok A008R, BFG R1, Bridgestone RE71S (who remembers those?? :119: ), I think Goodyear had a track version of the Gatorback, and the old Hoosier bias plys. That was about it. There were no Toyos or Kumhos or Avons or Michelins. And let&#39;s not even talk about grip levels and durability. I remember watching a guy burn up a brand new set of Hoosiers in 1 day. This was w/ a 1st gen. RX7 at Bridgehampton (car was in ITS at the time).

And since we&#39;re totally hijacking this thread, here&#39;s a question for Kirk, Greg, or anyone else that was around when IT was born (and forgive me if this has been addressed before). How was 1968 chosen as the cutoff date for IT cars?

[zracre]

I will take a guess....What was the cut off date for showroom stock when IY came around...the point of IT IIRC was for old showroom stock cars to add some fun bits and go racing (best thing for scca ever!!)

[Fastfred92]

At some point, and I would submit that we are close to it now, if not already there, we may start not being able to class cars without overly handicapping them. Or rejecting classification requests. If the trend continues, a new class, with a higher performance envelope potential must be considered.
[/b]

Not only at some point but I think the time is NOW! What can we do to get the board on this and moving towards 2007. IT racing is at a point where Ron&#39;s ITR or whatever needs to happen.