SIR testing?

[MikeBlaszczak]

Did the SCCA actually test and measure the SIR setup they've mandated for the E36 cars in ITS? I've read that a lot of experience was drawn from cars in GTL -- but was a real BMW used with the restrictor setup and run at a track and timed, or run at a dyno? What were the results?

The stock air intake plumbing has a diameter of 80mm. The throttle body is about 56mm or so, so the 27mm restriction means a huge reduction in air volume. The area of the intake cross section is reduced by 66 percent!

I finally had the time to call a couple of the well-known BMW racing parts suppliers. One said that the SIR can't possibly be the right solution, and that the car won't even run with such a restriction. The other shop said they tried it and it cost them such a substantial amount of horsepower that the car isn't possibly competitive.

Both vendors said that the SCCA hadn't done their homework; that they didn't test the design and just went with a guess. Perhaps more disappointingly, neither vendor is working on a product to solve the problem! They both believe the rule will be corrected, and said they're working with the SCCA to get them to understand the issue.

Are other BMW drivers having better luck in preparing for the season?

[mlytle]

Did the SCCA actually test and measure the SIR setup they've mandated for the E36 cars in ITS? I've read that a lot of experience was drawn from cars in GTL -- but was a real BMW used with the restrictor setup and run at a track and timed, or run at a dyno? What were the results?

The stock air intake plumbing has a diameter of 80mm. The throttle body is about 56mm or so, so the 27mm restriction means a huge reduction in air volume. The area of the intake cross section is reduced by 66 percent!

I finally had the time to call a couple of the well-known BMW racing parts suppliers. One said that the SIR can't possibly be the right solution, and that the car won't even run with such a restriction. The other shop said they tried it and it cost them such a substantial amount of horsepower that the car isn't possibly competitive.

Both vendors said that the SCCA hadn't done their homework; that they didn't test the design and just went with a guess. Perhaps more disappointingly, neither vendor is working on a product to solve the problem! They both believe the rule will be corrected, and said they're working with the SCCA to get them to understand the issue.

Are other BMW drivers having better luck in preparing for the season?
[/b]

nope. scca did ZERO testing of this application on the target car before mandating us to be guinea pigs. lots of theory and extrapolation from other implentations of sirs, but no actual reality check of the mandated size on the affected car. supposedly a member of the itac was going to witness a test fit and dyno run this week, but have not heard back.

in theory, the sir should work....unfortunately, we don't race "in theory".

in talking with a number of other scca bmw drivers, there is a lot of discussion going on about moving to nasa or bmwcca. coincidence maybe, but there seems to be a bump in the number of its bmw's for sale. :(

marshall
racing plans on hold for 2006

[Andy Bettencourt]

Did the SCCA actually test and measure the SIR setup they've mandated for the E36 cars in ITS? I've read that a lot of experience was drawn from cars in GTL -- but was a real BMW used with the restrictor setup and run at a track and timed, or run at a dyno? What were the results?

The stock air intake plumbing has a diameter of 80mm. The throttle body is about 56mm or so, so the 27mm restriction means a huge reduction in air volume. The area of the intake cross section is reduced by 66 percent!

I finally had the time to call a couple of the well-known BMW racing parts suppliers. One said that the SIR can't possibly be the right solution, and that the car won't even run with such a restriction. The other shop said they tried it and it cost them such a substantial amount of horsepower that the car isn't possibly competitive.

Both vendors said that the SCCA hadn't done their homework; that they didn't test the design and just went with a guess. Perhaps more disappointingly, neither vendor is working on a product to solve the problem! They both believe the rule will be corrected, and said they're working with the SCCA to get them to understand the issue.

Are other BMW drivers having better luck in preparing for the season? [/b]

Mike,

First off, I personally appreciate the issues at hand. The timing is tough. The ITAC knows it and the CRB knows it. The CRB has heard the shouting and has verified agin with Finch that the 27mm SIR is the right size for the 220hp target.

Second, it is clear that you aren't fully up to speed on SIR technology. It is not simply a 66% reduction in airflow like a 27mm flat-plate would be. Two TOTALLY different technologies. When talking with "BMW Supplier" #1, who said the car wouldn't even run, it is clear that they also don't understand SIR technology, or it wasn't expalined to them properly. I can see how you could get that response if the question was "what is a 27mm restrictor plate gonna do to my power?" was the question.

Thirdly, where is the info that the second shop came up with? They tried the 27mm SIR and the results were bad? Where are they? Any interest in having them send the before and after results, plus a description of the parts they used to install the set-up? crb AT scca.com Simple.

Both vendors said the SCCA didn't do their homework? Haven't received any letter from anyone but Bimmerworld and they made no mention of having ANY experience with SIR's and no data or theory to support their skeptisism. The opposite is true with the CRB - they worked with Finch to size it and (yes, I know) in theory it (the SIR) doesn't care what application it is in.

We have ZERO letters from anyone telling us why 27mm is wrong, suggesting any 'corrections' in the context of SIR's, or helping us 'understand the issues'. Just complaints.

I will be the first one to stand up and say we screwed the pooch if the testing (which is scheduled now on an E36 and warmly accepted by anyone who actually has data) shows too much power is being taken away. I would hope all of the people who have said the CRB is crazy and the sizing is way low would stand up and say they over-reacted if/when the power numbers are correct. Frankly, if it's OVER-sized, ya'll will be the first ones to write in and say you are making too much than the target, right? :rolleyes:

Again, I understand the timing sucks - and the perception it's a shot in the dark -but the CRB is ULTRA confident that this is sized right AND it's the right thing to do for the class/car.

AB

[MikeBlaszczak]

Second, it is clear that you aren't fully up to speed on SIR technology. It is not simply a 66% reduction in airflow like a 27mm flat-plate would be. [/b]

Of course I'm not, Andy. I'm an amateur mechanic and a club racer, not a aeronautical engineer. Anyway, I said it was a 66% reduction in the cross-section area, not a 66% reduction in flow. (You quoted it in your response, so I know you saw it.)


Any interest in having them send the before and after results, plus a description of the parts they used to install the set-up?[/b]

I don't know. Feel free to ask them.


We have ZERO letters from anyone telling us why 27mm is wrong, suggesting any 'corrections' in the context of SIR's, or helping us 'understand the issues'. Just complaints.[/b]

Conversely, where would I find information describing why 27mm is correct? I haven't seen any real help in understanding the issues; just assertions that it's correct, unbiased, and so forth.

Meanwhile, you've missed gone on about these other points and missed my most important question: I'm interested in hearing what other BMW racers are doing to prep their cars. As far as I can tell, just mounting the part requires custom fabbing duct work (to match the diameters of the SIR to the MAF), or finding a supplier who can make an SIR with the correct diameter. If I can find other drivers who are solving this same problem, it would help greatly; it's my hobby, and not my business, so having such a substantial workload dumped on me at the last moment is prohibitive.

In fact, at this point, I just can't imagine competing in ITS this year; I just don't see how I can get the fab work done, end up with something that works, aand so on, in time to have a successful season. Switching to a different class looks far easier.

[Joe Harlan]

Of course I'm not, Andy. I'm an amateur mechanic and a club racer, not a aeronautical engineer. Anyway, I said it was a 66% reduction in the cross-section area, not a 66% reduction in flow. (You quoted it in your response, so I know you saw it.)
I don't know. Feel free to ask them.
Conversely, where would I find information describing why 27mm is correct? I haven't seen any real help in understanding the issues; just assertions that it's correct, unbiased, and so forth.

Meanwhile, you've missed gone on about these other points and missed my most important question: I'm interested in hearing what other BMW racers are doing to prep their cars. As far as I can tell, just mounting the part requires custom fabbing duct work (to match the diameters of the SIR to the MAF), or finding a supplier who can make an SIR with the correct diameter. If I can find other drivers who are solving this same problem, it would help greatly; it's my hobby, and not my business, so having such a substantial workload dumped on me at the last moment is prohibitive.

In fact, at this point, I just can't imagine competing in ITS this year; I just don't see how I can get the fab work done, end up with something that works, aand so on, in time to have a successful season. Switching to a different class looks far easier.
[/b]So Mike let me undersdtand are you saying even as an amatuer mechanic that you can't install a tube in a tube? Next I checked the SCCA results for oregon region and part of Nw region and I don't find you listed in ITS? If you race a different class is SCCA loosing your entry?

[robits325is]

So Mike let me undersdtand are you saying even as an amatuer mechanic that you can't install a tube in a tube? Next I checked the SCCA results for oregon region and part of Nw region and I don't find you listed in ITS? If you race a different class is SCCA loosing your entry?
[/b]
What a rude response. He never said he is a current ITS racer - maybe he was looking to start this year and he is turned off by the latest rule changes. The SCCA may be potentially losing future entries - why not embrace them instead of insulting them?

[Joe Harlan]

What a rude response. He never said he is a current ITS racer - maybe he was looking to start this year and he is turned off by the latest rule changes. The SCCA may be potentially losing future entries - why not embrace them instead of insulting them?
[/b]
Your right Rob It was rude even though I didn't mean tit that way. I just don't type my thoughts well. I have embraced it by trying to give some help on placement and parts in the other thread. What you don't understand is I know where Mike races and it's not SCCA so saying he is considering taking his ball and playing some where else is a little bit off the point. My shop is 4 hours south and I first offered several free hours of help and even a trip the dyno. So please don't get in my face about not offering help or trying to run folks off. People just need to be a bit more honest when they say the threaten to leave a class in a public forum. Sorry for the unintended insult.

[BMW RACER]

Well, my SIR arrived from Raetech today, looks nice, the hole looks awful small though!

I've got a race coming up on the 26th at Willow Springs. I'll take my 2005 set up with me as well. I'll try them both and report back.

Sure would have been nice if SCCA had done some real homework before making this kneejerk decision. If it turns out to be a bad idea, I doubt they'd be so quick to make any improvements.

[Joe Harlan]

Well, my SIR arrived from Raetech today, looks nice, the hole looks awful small though!

I've got a race coming up on the 26th at Willow Springs. I'll take my 2005 set up with me as well. I'll try them both and report back.

Sure would have been nice if SCCA had done some real homework before making this kneejerk decision. If it turns out to be a bad idea, I doubt they'd be so quick to make any improvements.
[/b]


John, I have a first hand promise that if we can't make it work they will fix it period. Balance is what they are after not killing these cars off. I think Frank will be there with the 300z If I can break away from work I may rip down just to check it out and offer any help i could.

[lateapex911]

Well, my SIR arrived from Raetech today, looks nice, the hole looks awful small though!

I've got a race coming up on the 26th at Willow Springs. I'll take my 2005 set up with me as well. I'll try them both and report back.

Sure would have been nice if SCCA had done some real homework before making this kneejerk decision. If it turns out to be a bad idea, I doubt they'd be so quick to make any improvements.
[/b]

I'm only one voice of the ITAC, but I will say that MY goal is to fix any issues that arise, and my impression, from what our liason with the CRB has said, is that if there are legitimate issues, they will handle them quickly.

I am troubled that Mike thinks it will take him a season to get the item mounted to his satisfaction. But I do encourage him to continue to share information with his fellow racers. I can honestly say that I would be happy to assist any E36 guy, and I think the general nature of racers is such that anyone local would as well.

[Matt Rowe]

I'm only one voice of the ITAC, but I will say that MY goal is to fix any issues that arise, and my impression, from what our liason with the CRB has said, is that if there are legitimate issues, they will handle them quickly.
[/b]

The CRB made the statement in the CRB town hall meeting at the convention that if the SIR sizing i shown to be wrong it will addressed quickly. At least that is what I heard, but there were dozens of other witnesses.

[dj10]

The CRB made the statement in the CRB town hall meeting at the convention that if the SIR sizing i shown to be wrong it will addressed quickly. At least that is what I heard, but there were dozens of other witnesses.
[/b]

I for one am watching how this is playing out VERY CLOSELY! :unsure: I have another month at least before we can test. I would feel a whole hell of a lot better to see some test results, than to hear theroy from AB and the CRB. No disrespect intended AB or CRB.
dj

[Andy Bettencourt]

I would feel a whole hell of a lot better to see some test results, than to hear theroy from AB and the CRB. No disrespect intended AB or CRB.
dj [/b]

And that position is MORE than reasonable. But...we have to undertsnad that this isn't all theory. This is a technology that has been in use for years by other organizations, and by the SCCA for more than a year. The sizing formula has been developed through actual testing and results. While not on an E36 specifically prior to the ruling, the data has shown that effectiveness does not change by application.

The data and history shows a 27mm SIR will provide 220chp - the only missing link is the application - and that is supposed to be moot.

We have two ITAC guys in the NE who wold love to validate dyno runs/SIR results, should anyone want us there. I doubt it, because it has just as much potential to make more hp than it does less.

AB

[mlytle]

I for one am watching how this is playing out VERY CLOSELY! :unsure: I have another month at least before we can test. I would feel a whole hell of a lot better to see some test results, than to hear theroy from AB and the CRB. No disrespect intended AB or CRB.
dj
[/b]

for the cost of an sir, all these "easy to find" connection parts and some dyno time, the crb could have just done some basic testing and eliminated most all of the issues that have been thrashed about in these forums and made a bunch of drivers more comfortable. would that have been that hard?

instead, we get...do it, if YOU find problems with OUR solution, tell us and we will fix it. in the mean time, races have gone by and dollars have been wasted.

i ain't saying that an sir is the wrong solution. just saying AGAIN that it isn't fair to make us do mass r&d work on a theory. if scca thinks it will work, then scca should PROVE that it works.

[Joe Harlan]

for the cost of an sir, all these "easy to find" connection parts and some dyno time, the crb could have just done some basic testing and eliminated most all of the issues that have been thrashed about in these forums and made a bunch of drivers more comfortable. would that have been that hard?

instead, we get...do it, if YOU find problems with OUR solution, tell us and we will fix it. in the mean time, races have gone by and dollars have been wasted.

i ain't saying that an sir is the wrong solution. just saying AGAIN that it isn't fair to make us do mass r&d work on a theory. if scca thinks it will work, then scca should PROVE that it works.
[/b]

Who exactly do you guys think the SCCA is? It is you and me and everyone that pays a membership fee. So SCCA (via Dave Finch) did the modeling free of charge to you (The SCCA member) so we (the SCCA Club) didn't spend 50k in the research to help the adhoc (The SCCA ) solve an issue that has be running off other (SCCA) members. I think the SCCA has been doing its homework here and trying not to spend a fortune on this technology. So for anyone to say the SCCA has not worked on this deal is not quite be honest or fair. I believe others are working on dyno information as fast as they can. I have found that Schucks or Kragens stock alot of these silicon boots and adapters in different shapes and colors for those that have them close by.

[mikeblas]

People just need to be a bit more honest when they say the threaten to leave a class in a public forum. Sorry for the unintended insult.
[/b]
You're sorry for the insult, but now you're accusing me of being dishonest?

I'm not sure how all this gets me closer to answers for any of my questions.



Well, my SIR arrived from Raetech today, looks nice, the hole looks awful small though!

I've got a race coming up on the 26th at Willow Springs. I'll take my 2005 set up with me as well. I'll try them both and report back.

Sure would have been nice if SCCA had done some real homework before making this kneejerk decision. If it turns out to be a bad idea, I doubt they'd be so quick to make any improvements.
[/b]
Please do report back as soon as you can, John. I'm particularly interested in learning how you fit the device to your car and I'd love to be able to learn from your experience.

I'm not sure it was a knee-jerk decision, but I'd sure love to learn the details of their testing and study they did themselves before recommending this approach.



I am troubled that Mike thinks it will take him a season to get the item mounted to his satisfaction. But I do encourage him to continue to share information with his fellow racers. I can honestly say that I would be happy to assist any E36 guy, and I think the general nature of racers is such that anyone local would as well.
[/b]
There's only a couple of E36 ITS cars in my region. One guy races very infrequently; the other guy races occasionally, but mostly rents his car out for novice races and driver coaching.

Meanwhile Jake, I never said it would take a season. If it only six weeks, the process has completely devestated my test-and-tune time and my shakedown time. This cascades into the rest of my season, and in a competitive class, I can't afford to loose points or whole races.

Six weeks might sound unreasonably long to you if you run a shop or have a ton of fabrication experience. There's plenty of racers like me, who are using the sport to also become better mechanics. For now, six weeks seems like far too little time.

Thanks for your offer to help. My questions about fitment are in this thread (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7228). At the moment, I can't find a commercially available reducer to get from the the thin, plastic flange on my MAF (which is 80mm in diameter) to the 3.0-inch (76mm) exhaust flange on the SIR. That part also needs to be flexible; or have a bend in it, so I can route the SIR doward in the engine bay.

[mlytle]

Who exactly do you guys think the SCCA is? It is you and me and everyone that pays a membership fee. So SCCA (via Dave Finch) did the modeling free of charge to you (The SCCA member) so we (the SCCA Club) didn't spend 50k in the research to help the adhoc (The SCCA ) solve an issue that has be running off other (SCCA) members. I think the SCCA has been doing its homework here and trying not to spend a fortune on this technology. So for anyone to say the SCCA has not worked on this deal is not quite be honest or fair. I believe others are working on dyno information as fast as they can. I have found that Schucks or Kragens stock alot of these silicon boots and adapters in different shapes and colors for those that have them close by.
[/b]

i think the scca is a very large, member run organization that could have very easily spent a grand or two in order to do some basic reality check testing on something for its members before forcing them to do it.

$50k? are you kidding? if you are serious, then it is even worse that the scca has dumped this on a small group of its members.

scca has not fully worked through this deal. volunteer or for profit, the same basic customer service principles apply. i think i am being honest and fair.

you asked.

[BMW RACER]

Thanks for the words of encouragement. At this point I'm going for it and then decide after some track time. I don't think fitment should be too hard. I've found a source for aluminum tubing: www.burnsstainless.com

I'm thinking of getting some 3" tubing in straight and curved sections. Then cutting and welding it kind of like how people fabricate exhaust systems.

Routing wise, I'm thinking 45 deg out of the air mass sensor, down through the hole under the left headlight, kind of like most aftermarket "cold air systems" Then making a right turn that will run in front of the radiator over to the area behind the right fog light. I'll keep you posted on the results.

The hoses shouldn't be too tough I'm thinking 3" tubing, 4mm difference should be workable. Once again I'll get back to you on that.

[dj10]

But...we have to undertsnad that this isn't all theory. This is a technology that has been in use for years by other organizations, and by the SCCA for more than a year. The sizing formula has been developed through actual testing and results. While not on an E36 specifically prior to the ruling, the data has shown that effectiveness does not change by application.

The data and history shows a 27mm SIR will provide 220chp - the only missing link is the application - and that is supposed to be moot.

We have two ITAC guys in the NE who wold love to validate dyno runs/SIR results, should anyone want us there. I doubt it, because it has just as much potential to make more hp than it does less.

AB
[/b]

AB, I ask you, where is the DATA? You keep telling there is data but, where is it? I want to see it and for it to pertain to MY BMW. I want to know if there is any limitations on my rpms & ECU. Are my shift points changing? Is a different geared differential needed?
Lets break down the costs that the CRB want us to absorb.
200.00 for new hose and air filter that will work.
400.00 We all know that this is for the SIR
$$$$.$$ 650 mile round trip to the Dyno & Home (only guy I trust)
$$$.$$ Taking at 2 days off from work.
ALL THIS TO MAKE YOUR CAR GO SLOWER!!!!!!!! PRICELESS!!!!
You add this all up and honestly tell me that the SCCA or CRB shouldn't or couldn't come up with a better plan? Just tell me where the data is for my BMW? Moot to you, not to me and others.
FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS A EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION
dj

[Andy Bettencourt]

Are you expecting me to have it on my PC? The CRB made a decision based on the data they have.

I told you that the SIR doesn't care what application it is in. Don't know how else to explain it. Your questions can only be answered by you on the track. I suspect you will have minimal issues except a loos of top-end power - should you have more than 220 now. If not, you won't be effected. This is what SIR's do.

If you are concerned about cost, go to a closer one on a Saturday. Nobody is forcing you to spend all that money. How do you know you will go slower? Only if you have more than 220hp. And that would mean your car didn't fit in ITS.

The CRB is testing these this weekend IIRC. If an adjustment in size is needed, IT WILL BE DONE.

What do you think the equal and opposite REACTION is going to be?

I am hoping no adjustment is needed. If it is, it will be.

I am sympathetic to the situation butI believe the CRB acted in good faith.

AB

[dj10]

The CRB is testing these this weekend IIRC. If an adjustment in size is needed, IT WILL BE DONE.
AB
[/b]

WAITING WITH BATED BREATH!

[mlytle]

Thanks for the words of encouragement. At this point I'm going for it and then decide after some track time. I don't think fitment should be too hard. I've found a source for aluminum tubing: www.burnsstainless.com

I'm thinking of getting some 3" tubing in straight and curved sections. Then cutting and welding it kind of like how people fabricate exhaust systems.

Routing wise, I'm thinking 45 deg out of the air mass sensor, down through the hole under the left headlight, kind of like most aftermarket "cold air systems" Then making a right turn that will run in front of the radiator over to the area behind the right fog light. I'll keep you posted on the results.

The hoses shouldn't be too tough I'm thinking 3" tubing, 4mm difference should be workable. Once again I'll get back to you on that.
[/b]
careful with where you put that air filter john. read the itcs carefully. i think the location you are thinking of is outside the engine compt and may be illegal. that hole under the headlight could be defined as the limit of the engine compt.

[BMW RACER]

Just got off the phone with Dave at Raetech, He says they've changed the date to April 1! And changed the size to 29mm.

[lateapex911]

That's news to me. Not that it is, or isn't true, it's just that I haven't gotten anything official on it.

But, I DO know that IF the size proved incorrect, Dave had said from the begining he would swap out the sections no charge.

The timing was tight on this, and I was surprised to see it go down that way. If it's true, how does the 4/1 date work for the E36 guys?

[dj10]

Just got off the phone with Dave at Raetech, He says they've changed the date to April 1! And changed the size to 29mm.
[/b]

This isn't a joke is it? Hey Andy better hold off on your test. :024:
Maybe by 4/1 it will be up to 32mm. :wacko: Yes in theory. Wouldn't it be nice for some practical application here. :D

[seckerich]

Screw this--give the car the 300 pounds the process said it should weigh and lets go racing. Doesent matter what is done to try to keep the car competitive and slow it some. Run some tubes down from the door bars to hold a weight box and fill it with lead. The ITAC will just get endless crap until they cave to the 30mm, no 40mm, hold it 50mm--nevermind if you just let us keep our advantage crowd. You made a good faith effort and get trashed either way--so let the lead fly!!

[mlytle]

Just got off the phone with Dave at Raetech, He says they've changed the date to April 1! And changed the size to 29mm.
[/b]

could that be the result of some....omg...actual TESTING???

we need details!

[gpeluso]

:wacko: Andy,
How much Horsepower is lost from the crank??? On a BMW. If you don't know the answer you shouldn't be preaching 220chp is the answer. I beleive there is about 15% lost? So, my point is the BMW would be overweight for the horsepower being put out compared to the RX7. If you don't know the answer to the first how could anyone oncluding you decide what crank horsepower was need and for that point what SIR size?
bmw=220chp 15% lose= 187hp at 2850lbs

rx7=182whp (per AB) at 2650lbs


????????????????????????????????

Hey, is the SCCA going to help the guys who already bought the first SIR?

300 lbs may not be right either...................different dyno's give different hp(mustang vs dynojet) are you really comparing apples to apples and just like James Clay stated years ago about the euro cams, are you sure that some of the high hp from BMW's are legal hp. Revisit old post from Clay talking about these illegal cams that are difficult to tell from stock due to part numbers. The SCCA has an even smaller window to do the right thing.
Greg

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg,

220hp IS the answer I believe. It's what the BMW should make to fit in ITS. The process is based on crank numbers. This has been stated probably a hundred times.

Is it ironic that no BMW owners have posted here?

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7315 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7315)

3100-3150 would be a number based on process weight - backed up by dyno sheets - not BASED on dyno sheets. :bash_1_:

And the RX-7 weighs 2680... :rolleyes:

There will be no holding back on any test. The more data the better to satisfy the critics and/or validate a need for a change (bigger or smaller SIR). There has been no data submitted as of tonight.

[gpeluso]

<_< :( Andy,

You are missing my point? from 220chp what would be the whp from the drivetrain loss?(on a BMW)
It isn&#39;t 220whp!

Just because you write a hundred times doesn&#39;t make it right.



Greg

Why not compare whp? How do we know the RX7 is 220chp? Don&#39;t you have to take the drivetrains into consideration? Isn&#39;t whp the real end result??

So far your theory isn&#39;t to hot!

Stop this and admit you and the SCCA need more time before making any adjustment this year!

Greg

[Andy Bettencourt]

<_< :( Andy,

You are missing my point? from 220chp what would be the whp from the drivetrain loss?(on a BMW)
It isn&#39;t 220whp!

Just because you write a hundred times doesn&#39;t make it right.



Greg

Why not compare whp? How do we know the RX7 is 220chp? Don&#39;t you have to take the drivetrains into consideration? Isn&#39;t whp the real end result??

So far your theory isn&#39;t to hot!

Stop this and admit you and the SCCA need more time before making any adjustment this year!

Greg [/b]

Greg,

When *I* estimate, I use 18% losses for a RWD car. Let&#39;s assume the RX-7 and the BMW will make 220chp or ~ 180whp. Drievtrain losses can vary from E36 to E36. You should see some of the things that spec-cars do to eliminate losses. It&#39;s never gonna be perfect. Spell out for everyone what you would do and how you would do it for 2006. Then I will ask Steve E. to respond to it so you can understand all sides.

Still haven&#39;t seen your &#39;answer&#39; in the other thread.

I have no more energy to debate this over and over. Your questions and concerns have been discussed in other threads.

AB

[seckerich]

Andy is correct with his statements about driveline loss. This is not a free ride if your developement on the whole package is not good. If you don&#39;t use light oils, low viscosity grease, and a few other tricks you can learn on your own--don&#39;t expect to get the same rear wheel results as everyone else. You get the power from the motor with a given set of trans ratios--up to you to make the most of it.

[dj10]

could that be the result of some....omg...actual TESTING???

we need details!
[/b]

Marshall & Greg, are we having fun yet? :cavallo:

[Greg Amy]

Marshall & Greg, are we having fun yet?[/b]
You may be, but the rest of us are just getting sick and tired of the bitching.

Well, just don&#39;t read it then!
Would we be so lucky. If you know how to ignore specific folks on this board, lead me to it.

Well don&#39;t you think we have a reason to bitch?
Yes, once or twice, not incessantly. Do you really think andy Bettencourt is the one that made the decisions against which you&#39;re so vehemently opposed? Do you really think Andy Bettencourt has the ability to poof! make these changes back to where they were?

What was the response on the letter you mailed to the CRB?

Plus, I didn&#39;t see the Bimmer Boys getting all so upset as these beautiful pieces of machinery were wiping up the competition. I didn&#39;t see the Bimmer Boys getting all upset when 2-liter front-wheel-drive cars were languishing in ITS and getting lapped twice a race (by mostly BMWs). And don&#39;t give me that tired line about how uncompetitive they were/are...it&#39;s just immature. You must really think the rest of the world is stupid.

Sorry, guys, but you&#39;re quickly becoming a bunch of whiney babies. Either make a reasonable effort for change or simply go off to the BMW club and have a big group cry. I, personally, am tired of it. - GA

[dj10]

You may be, but the rest of us are just getting sick and tired of the bitching.

Well, just don&#39;t read it then!
Would we be so lucky. If you know how to ignore specific folks on this board, lead me to it.

Well don&#39;t you think we have a reason to bitch?
Yes, once or twice, not incessantly. Do you really think andy Bettencourt is the one that made the decisions against which you&#39;re so vehemently opposed? Do you really think Andy Bettencourt has the ability to poof! make these changes back to where they were?

What was the response on the letter you mailed to the CRB?

Plus, I didn&#39;t see the Bimmer Boys getting all so upset as these beautiful pieces of machinery were wiping up the competition. I didn&#39;t see the Bimmer Boys getting all upset when 2-liter front-wheel-drive cars were languishing in ITS and getting lapped twice a race (by mostly BMWs). And don&#39;t give me that tired line about how uncompetitive they were/are...it&#39;s just immature. You must really think the rest of the world is stupid.

Sorry, guys, but you&#39;re quickly becoming a bunch of whiney babies. Either make a reasonable effort for change or simply go off to the BMW club and have a big group cry. I, personally, am tired of it. - GA

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe you should try living better thru modern chemistry.
This entire quote has nothing to do with what I typed. :D
[/b][b]

[JeffYoung]

Dj, sorry, but Greg is right. As a driver of a "challenged" ITS car, I had hoped you guys would be reigned in some, but totally disagreed with the SIR and I had some sympathy for you.

However, the responses I have seen here by the BMW "crowd" (more on that in a minute, since it is only a few of you) really turned me off to you guys. This is not some big Andy B. led conspiracy to screw BMWs. It was a legitimate attempt to fix a playing field that EVERYONE other than the BMWs thought was uneven.

A couple of things are interesting to me. Only a couple of BMW guys even bother to post here (and I do appredciate that). Most of you appear to be participating in a nasty, unfair, rude, and downright whiny conversation on the BMW board. Frankly, I think the guys there are there because they don&#39;t want to face the facts that are posted here.

So be it.

I want to race with BMWs. I think they should be in ITS. I think that they should be one of if not the best car to have. But the attitudes displayed here, and even more so on the BMW board -- hell, take your cars and go race BMW CCA. ITS with RX7s, GSRs, 240zs, 240sxs and the newly lightened 944s sure looks good to me.

[dj10]

Dj, sorry, but Greg is right. As a driver of a "challenged" ITS car, I had hoped you guys would be reigned in some, but totally disagreed with the SIR and I had some sympathy for you.

However, the responses I have seen here by the BMW "crowd" (more on that in a minute, since it is only a few of you) really turned me off to you guys. This is not some big Andy B. led conspiracy to screw BMWs. It was a legitimate attempt to fix a playing field that EVERYONE other than the BMWs thought was uneven.

A couple of things are interesting to me. Only a couple of BMW guys even bother to post here (and I do appredciate that). Most of you appear to be participating in a nasty, unfair, rude, and downright whiny conversation on the BMW board. Frankly, I think the guys there are there because they don&#39;t want to face the facts that are posted here.

So be it.

I want to race with BMWs. I think they should be in ITS. I think that they should be one of if not the best car to have. But the attitudes displayed here, and even more so on the BMW board -- hell, take your cars and go race BMW CCA. ITS with RX7s, GSRs, 240zs, 240sxs and the newly lightened 944s sure looks good to me.
[/b]
I&#39;d really like to know what the HELL you are talking about!!!!!!????????
Let&#39;s clear some s*** up! 1st of all I don&#39;t even post on the BMW board!!!! I have read some of the shi* on the board and it sickens me! I am an adult and I don&#39;t attack attack anyone unless they truly deserve it or like now, like you attacking me and I&#39;ve never attacked anyone on this board including AB or anyone else. I expect the same couresty and now I&#39;m pissed that Grey Amy and you are from what I see attacking me for what? Being sarcarstic? What do you expect? Forcing me to buy UNTESTED & UNPROVED BS! Making me spend more money? Isn&#39;t racing expensive enought? Look at Greg&#39;s and read your post and tell me who is being rude and for what? You better read my posts again and this time DON&#39;T TAKE THEM OUT OF CONTEXT!
So I don&#39;t know who the hell you ARE talking about, but it better not be me!
One last thing! The way you and Amy have reacted make&#39;s you no better than some of the jerks on the BMW board, congrats you HAVE lowered yourselves. This site is for constructive dialog not for attacking anyone. Grow up!

[JeffYoung]

DJ, I will apologize to you for this reason -- my post was meant to apply to the BMW racer crowd as a whole, not any single individual. It was not a personal attack on you, or your posting.

But Greg is right. This whole episode has just made me, and a lot of other ITS drivers, just think we&#39;d be better off without the 325 in ITS. I truly didn&#39;t use to think that way, and enjoyed racing with (and on rare occasions actually racing WITH) the E36. You guys have some legitimate beefs with teh SIR, in my view. But the problem is more basic than that. None of you seem to recognize that the car is too light for its hp and capabilities.

Enough said, moving on. I wish you guys had gotten 300 lbs weight, but honestly, it looks to me like we would have seen the same level of bitching.

[Doc Bro]

The interesting thing is that both sides have very legitimate points but that is where the similarity ends:

1. The e36 had not gone through "the process" and that is unarguable....

2. That fact is also not Andy or Jake or anyone else&#39;s fault.

Can we get agreement on these two points?


Next,

The SCCA and the ITAC have tried in some way to level the playing field......agreed?

They propsed several options and the CRB went with the SIR.....agreed?

All parties involoved were in a system of checks and balances, meaning it was a peer reviewed process and not a unilateral decision. Information was collected for/against adjustment of the e36......agreed?

The e36 boys feel there is a conspiracy or that they are funding the SCCA&#39;s experiment....agreed?


The crux of the matter is that there is no e36 guys that can back up there stance with facts yet- only conjecture.....and that is where most of us see a problem with how you guys are going about it. You will not get a sympathetic ear with this playbook. Just look at the facts and reverse the roles.....it&#39;s right there in front of you.

Pitch in, team up and PROVE that it was a mistake. Instead you&#39;re whining and letting Andy do they dyno work for you. How cowardly. You (generically) attack him and he still goes to bat for you to make sure they (ITAC/CRB) got it right!!

WOW.

If he&#39;s right there should be a whole bunch of apologies and atta boy&#39;s.

Let&#39;s not forget this is a volunteer thing. Being lambasted for a hobby stinks.

R


And YES I DRIVE A BMW!!

[dj10]

DJ, I will apologize to you for this reason -- my post was meant to apply to the BMW racer crowd as a whole, not any single individual. It was not a personal attack on you, or your posting.

But Greg is right. This whole episode has just made me, and a lot of other ITS drivers, just think we&#39;d be better off without the 325 in ITS. I truly didn&#39;t use to think that way, and enjoyed racing with (and on rare occasions actually racing WITH) the E36. You guys have some legitimate beefs with teh SIR, in my view. But the problem is more basic than that. None of you seem to recognize that the car is too light for its hp and capabilities.

Enough said, moving on. I wish you guys had gotten 300 lbs weight, but honestly, it looks to me like we would have seen the same level of bitching.
[/b]
Jeff,
These are your opinions and does not reflect the classifications or opinions of the SCCA. If you want us out, vote us out. NASA lookin better all the time with the attitudes I see here! You say we have legitmate beefs but you don&#39;t have the patience for us to work them out. In fact it sounds like you and Amy would throw us out.
If the CRB wants me to stick a bananna in my intake I&#39;d do it. Just be sure it won&#39;t screw anything up. Is this too much to ask?

[dj10]

The interesting thing is that both sides have very legitimate points but that is where the similarity ends:

1. The e36 had not gone through "the process" and that is unarguable....

2. That fact is also not Andy or Jake or anyone else&#39;s fault.

Can we get agreement on these two points?
Next,

The SCCA and the ITAC have tried in some way to level the playing field......agreed?

They propsed several options and the CRB went with the SIR.....agreed?

All parties involoved were in a system of checks and balances, meaning it was a peer reviewed process and not a unilateral decision. Information was collected for/against adjustment of the e36......agreed?

The e36 boys feel there is a conspiracy or that they are funding the SCCA&#39;s experiment....agreed?
The crux of the matter is that there is no e36 guys that can back up there stance with facts yet- only conjecture.....and that is where most of us see a problem with how you guys are going about it. You will not get a sympathetic ear with this playbook. Just look at the facts and reverse the roles.....it&#39;s right there in front of you.

Pitch in, team up and PROVE that it was a mistake. Instead you&#39;re whining and letting Andy do they dyno work for you. How cowardly. You (generically) attack him and he still goes to bat for you to make sure they (ITAC/CRB) got it right!!

WOW.

If he&#39;s right there should be a whole bunch of apologies and atta boy&#39;s.

Let&#39;s not forget this is a volunteer thing. Being lambasted for a hobby stinks.

R
And YES I DRIVE A BMW!!
[/b]

Doc,
The SCCA and the ITAC have tried in some way to level the playing field......agreed? YES
They propsed several options and the CRB went with the SIR.....agreed? YES
The e36 boys feel there is a conspiracy NO or that they are funding the SCCA&#39;s experiment....agreed? YES
Pitch in, team up and PROVE that it was a mistake. THEY ALREADY KNOW IT WAS A MISTAKE BY RAISING THE SIR SIZE FROM 27 MM TO 29 MM.
2. That fact is also not Andy or Jake or anyone else&#39;s fault. CORRECT
Doc, this is SCCA&#39;s tech dept problem, not AB&#39;s or anyone else&#39;s. All we want is some guarantee that we won&#39;t be chasing our tails some 3 months into the racing season. Is this too much of a unreasonable request?
Again, other that a little sarcasm I have and never will condon or be apart of personal attacks. :cavallo:

[JeffYoung]

DJ, I agree the SIR was ill-conceived (by the CRB), ill planned, apparently ill-tested although still not clear on that, and certainly poorly timed.

So, how about 250 lbs? Would you take that, no bee-yatching allowed?

[Doc Bro]

Doc, this is SCCA&#39;s tech dept problem, not AB&#39;s or anyone else&#39;s. All we want is some guarantee that we won&#39;t be chasing our tails some 3 months into the racing season. Is this too much of a unreasonable request?
Again, other that a little sarcasm I have and never will condon or be apart of personal attacks. :cavallo:
[/b]


DJ,
I&#39;m on both sides on this and I appreciate your position. I clearly see where the frustration lies. I do see the frustration of the other ITS marques too.

I have&#39;t heard that the SIR was changing size other than from a BMW vendor. I may be wrong I&#39;m unsure. If it is I understand that that would further reinforce your stance!!

Correct me but I thought that RAETech would reimburse if the SIR did change size?

My only point was that AB has agreed to the testing while the opposite camp has said I&#39;m not spending the money to test etc, etc.....

You must agree to the average lurker it sure looks like Andy has gone very far to insure the integrity of the decision, and for that I feel he should be applauded. That&#39;s the type of attitude we want in our sport and in our leadership. Let&#39;s be patient and see what the testing from both sides reveals.

Other&#39;s have in fact commented that they thought it was a conspiracy...if not here then on bimmerforums or somewhere- I read it.

R

[dj10]

DJ, I agree the SIR was ill-conceived (by the CRB), ill planned, apparently ill-tested although still not clear on that, and certainly poorly timed.

So, how about 250 lbs? Would you take that, no bee-yatching allowed?
[/b]

GIVE ME SIR OR GIVE ME DEATH! :cavallo: :D

[mlytle]

i started to write a big long post to respond to some of the bs in the last two pages of this thread, but then realized i was just would be repeating the same points several of us have tried to make many times already.

the thread in the other bmw forum was just plain stupid. it does not reflect the attitudes or ideas of the majority of the scca bmw drivers.

if only scca would kick us out of its. that would be awesome. make a new class above its and put us in it. get us away from all this whining... :lol:

[dj10]

DJ,
I&#39;m on both sides on this and I appreciate your position. I clearly see where the frustration lies. I do see the frustration of the other ITS marques too.

I have&#39;t heard that the SIR was changing size other than from a BMW vendor. I may be wrong I&#39;m unsure. If it is I understand that that would further reinforce your stance!!

Correct me but I thought that RAETech would reimburse if the SIR did change size?

My only point was that AB has agreed to the testing while the opposite camp has said I&#39;m not spending the money to test etc, etc.....

You must agree to the average lurker it sure looks like Andy has gone very far to insure the integrity of the decision, and for that I feel he should be applauded. That&#39;s the type of attitude we want in our sport and in our leadership. Let&#39;s be patient and see what the testing from both sides reveals.

Other&#39;s have in fact commented that they thought it was a conspiracy...if not here then on bimmerforums or somewhere- I read it.
R
[/b]


Doc, you seem like so many people here, an intelligent person. Please don&#39;t get caught up in the conspiracy theory&#39;s in this forum or others. I assure you that no rational person thinks everyone in the SCCA is out to get anyone who owns a E36 325. Yea were going to bust AB&#39;s balls some.B) This is not meant to be mean spirited and as for me, I will tease anyone I can if I get the chance. :birra:

Raetech did say he would swap any incorrect SIR. At least that is what the post said. I&#39;ve already shown that this could be expensive to tune your car again, and if the SIR isn&#39;t right, then again. If my car wasn&#39;t in 1000 pieces I&#39;d let someone use my car for testing.
We will get through this I am sure, just have some patience. In some cases redundancy is good but not in this case.
On the test itself, we will need to know the parameters.
dj

[MikeBlaszczak]

The rhetoric and fighting on this board really mitigates its value.

Was the size truly increased? How would we ever find out for sure? Raetech doesn&#39;t list sizes bigger than 27mm in their catalog. Have they developed a correctly sized part to match the rest of the BMW plumbing, that doesn&#39;t further reduce the airflow after the SIR mouth?

Even stipulating that the changes are necessary, changing so close to the start of the season (twice?) and doing it two years in a row is very hard to like.

[David Finch]

Guys,

Making adjustments are always difficult, especially in the eyes of the people be adjusted. The best thing you can do is accept that an adjustment will be made and work hard to make sure that it is correct for the class. The Boards were responding to the needs of the class as a whole. They recognized that in their attempt to look after the class as a whole they put the BMW guys in a disadvantageous position. The Boards are now trying to correct that. Thank them! Keep your eye on the SCCA web site in order to know what is going on.

I will build the SIR determined to be correct by the CRB and exchange it with the 27 mm SIRs already purchased. I am the one who should be complaining.

Dave Finch

[dj10]

Has the size truly increased? How would we ever find out for sure? Raetech doesn&#39;t list sizes bigger than 27mm in their catalog. Have they developed a correctly sized part to match the rest of the BMW plumbing, that doesn&#39;t further reduce the airflow after the SIR mouth?

Even stipulating that the changes are necessary, changing so close to the start of the season (twice?) and doing it two years in a row is very hard to like.
[/b]

Mike, I&#39;m in the same boat as you. 1st take a deep breath and relax. :D Then look at post #23. Don&#39;t worry I&#39;m sure things will get rectified pertaining what Raetech has and will get for the SIR. As far as the plumbing goes do a search for silicone hose. I found many sizes and shapes that would fit the intake system of our E36&#39;s. I suggest a K&N Filter which should fit easily. You seem unsure of your self when trying to make this work, if so I suggest a pro. I am sure they could fit this up with very little trouble and little expense. If I find anything out I&#39;ll post it ASAP.
BTW, Thanks Dave for the info.
dj

[Joe Harlan]

The rhetoric and fighting on this board really mitigates its value.

Was the size truly increased? How would we ever find out for sure? Raetech doesn&#39;t list sizes bigger than 27mm in their catalog. Have they developed a correctly sized part to match the rest of the BMW plumbing, that doesn&#39;t further reduce the airflow after the SIR mouth?

Even stipulating that the changes are necessary, changing so close to the start of the season (twice?) and doing it two years in a row is very hard to like.
[/b]
No nothing official, I believe Darin posted in the rules section with actual info from the CRB.

[mlytle]

yup, see darin&#39;s post in the r&r section
1/ new date is april fools day
2/ no change in restrictor size
3/ some crb testing this weekend

[gpeluso]

:unsure: With the testing that will be taken place this weekend can we get an idea what has been done to the car, engine performance wise. Is it possible also to see the before and after from this test. This kind of info could and will help BMW owns have direction and feel better about the situation. I know this sounds stupid, but can we make sure everything on the test cars are legal( Cams especailly) To help validate the test, it would be nice to see two engines originally producing different hp producing abou the same with the SIR. Thank you for whoever is spend time and money this weekend.

Greg

[dj10]

Just got off the phone with Dave at Raetech, He says they&#39;ve changed the date to April 1! And changed the size to 29mm.
[/b]

Can you share any more info on this conversation?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can you share any more info on this conversation? [/b]

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...t=0&#entry73859 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7329&st=0&#entry73859)

AB

[gpeluso]

:wacko: Andy,
I think DJ was refferring to what BMW RACER conversation was, not an SCCA update.

Greg

[Andy Bettencourt]

:wacko: Andy,
I think DJ was refferring to what BMW RACER conversation was, not an SCCA update.

Greg [/b]

Yup, I know exactly what he was asking - and the comments posted by Darin in that post specifically address the information mistakingly conveyed by Mr. Finch to Mr. Norris. :rolleyes:

AB

[BMW RACER]

I didn&#39;t want to drop Dave Finch in it! I called him the other day looking for another adapter for the 27mm SIR I got from him. That&#39;s when he told me the news, I thought it was important so I passed it along. Sorry if I got it wrong.

I WANT TO SAY THANKS TO:

1/ Dave Finch @ Raetech for his efforts.

2/ SCCA for coming to its senses and giving some time.

3/ To the other members of this board who steered me away from spending the time and money going down the wrong road with my routing of my intake system (Illegal)

Since we&#39;re not sure what size we&#39;re going to end up with and I already have a 27mm unit (that sounds bad) I&#39;ll try it at Willow Springs in a couple of weeks and see how it works.

[Z3_GoCar]

R
And YES I DRIVE A BMW!!
[/b]

Rob,

Say IT out loud, the Z3 is in fact an e-36 B)

John,

I hope to at least stop by Willow Springs at the next event. My e-36 should be on the way out about that time. Thanks for the revised ITE rules, at least I&#39;ve got a class for my 2.8l Z3.

James

"Alpha Males drive BMW&#39;s....Nice People drive Alfa&#39;s" Jeremy Clarkson

[lateapex911]

To the guys who are posting here and are being reasonable, thanks.

I can see Gregs point, but it does generalize, and that&#39;s dangerous. Certainly if "Marranelloman" (Whoever that chicken who won&#39;t post his name actually IS), were typical of the SCCA E36 guys..the real RACERS who can really shoe a car...any car, not just their blinders on self loved mentaly masterbating B-M-Ws, then I too, would send my invitations to all of them to join some other organization.....

But "Marranelloman" and "Oldskool" are not the SCCA norm, thank the stars, and I have zero desire to exonerate anyone. IF guys are reasonable, ITS is a better place with as many models as we can make fit reasonably well.

Which is to say, models which can, when driven very well, and prepped to their max, win on certain tracks on certain days, against other models of equally superb prep and piloting.

The weight would have been easy. And you know what? THe objections would still be there.

But honestly, we can debate the degree of correction needed, but it is very hard for me to discuss, reasonably, the topic with anyone who denies there is a "problem". Lets move in a positive direction, which I think we are doing here....but probably not doing over "there" where we are being compared to the Supreme Court, a body with which we have zero in common, especially our function.

So, unlike the SCCA of old, we are now discussing things directly with the competitors...that&#39;s a big step. But also, I think we are being more flexible in an atttempt to be as fair as possible, while still trying to acheive the solution that is in the best interest for all. It IS unfortunate that the timing was bad on this. I wish I could turn the clock back. I can&#39;t, but I will do what I can to try to get data points and get this thing right.

If we all work together, and rise above our understandable need to protect our individual competive advantages, I think we can resolve this in the fastest and fairest way.

Read the main thread regarding this in the Rules section. I will be attending that dyno session, which is incidentally, a CRB &#39;sponsored&#39; event. I will post results to the degree the parties allow.

Keep your eyes on the main thread.

[Z3_GoCar]

Jake,

I&#39;m watching this as maybe it will result in a way to class my 2.8l Z3 into ITS. Given it&#39;s short wheel base and semi-trailing arms out back, give me the same size SIR, and take 25-50 lbs off the 325 :happy204:

James

[MikeBlaszczak]

Then look at post #23.[/b]
Yes, I saw that. Who is "they"? Raetech, or the SCCA? I also don&#39;t see anything in that post about correctly-sized flanges.



As far as the plumbing goes do a search for silicon hose. [/b]

Shouldn&#39;t I search for silicone hose?



I found many sizes and shapes that would fit the intake system of our E36&#39;s.
[/b]

Can you provide a specific supplier and product? I can&#39;t find anything that will reduce the 80mm diameter of the MAF flange to the 3.0-inch flange on the SIR. I&#39;ve been all over the Samco site, and a few others. (Some that look really dicey, too.)



I suggest a K&N Filter which should fit easily.[/b]

No need for a filter; I&#39;m quite happy with the cone filter I&#39;ve got. It has a 3.0-inch flange which I can mate to the 3.0-inch flange on the SIR with bit of silicone coupling hose.



You seem unsure of your self when trying to make this work, if so I suggest a pro. I am sure they could fit this up with very little trouble and little expense. If I find anything out I&#39;ll post it ASAP.
[/b]

Well, as Andy is happy to point out, I know nothing about SIRs.

So for now, I&#39;m just trying to make the car legal. As I&#39;ve stated previously, the hangup is that the reducer knocks me down to 3.0 inches (76.2mm) when I should have an OD of 80mm. I don&#39;t think silicone hose is going to give enough (at least, good silicone hose shouldn&#39;t!), and I&#39;d hate to force something over the plastic flange on my MAF and crack it as it&#39;s an expensive part. It&#39;s slightly less than the SIR itself, but still...

[lateapex911]

So you&#39;re trying to get a roughly 77mm (ID?) hose over an 80mm(OD)???flange/pipe? Thats about 3mm, or about 1/8th inch.

Maybe I misunderstand the IDs and ODs, but that sounds very close given the overall number. Might be worth a try....

If I am mixed up, sorry!

[dj10]

Yup, I know exactly what he was asking - and the comments posted by Darin in that post specifically address the information mistakingly conveyed by Mr. Finch to Mr. Norris. :rolleyes:

AB
[/b]

Thanks Andy, but I wanted to hear about the conversation 1st hand from John Norris.
Thanks John for clearing things up.
dj

[Joe Harlan]

http://www.racepartsolutions.com/products.asp?cat=38

3 to 3.25

I use these couplers all the time. You will be able to get a nice clean clamp on this type of deal.

[dj10]

Shouldn&#39;t I search for silicone hose?
[/quote]

Yes Mike, please search with the correct spelling. B) Or just go to the site Joe Harlan was so kind to post. You can build something from there.

[mlytle]

Rob,

Say IT out loud, the Z3 is in fact an e-36 B)

[/b]
only the FRONT half is an e36...the BACK half is an E30... B)

[DoubleD]

The SCCA may be potentially losing future entries
[/b]

May be nothing. I had a donor car identified, a cage builder set, and a motor on order. I dropped it all when I came to the conclusion that equality is not what is going to happen.

[Gregg]

May be nothing. I had a donor car identified, a cage builder set, and a motor on order. I dropped it all when I came to the conclusion that equality is not what is going to happen.
[/b]
Count yourself as lucky then...There are plenty of people that have had it happen to their ITS investments in the past few years and have just mothballed their cars or sold them at a huge loss.

-Gregg, who has no problem with the weight dumped on his "overdog" ITA car if it will make the racing closer.

[Andy Bettencourt]

May be nothing. I had a donor car identified, a cage builder set, and a motor on order. I dropped it all when I came to the conclusion that equality is not what is going to happen. [/b]

Again, based on what? IF, and that is a big IF, the SIR needs sizing correction, what makes you belive that the end-result won&#39;t be what the original goal is?

Actually, let me ask you this:

What do you think the original goal is?

[lateapex911]

May be nothing. I had a donor car identified, a cage builder set, and a motor on order. I dropped it all when I came to the conclusion that equality is not what is going to happen.
[/b]

You came to the conclusion...........and HOW did you arrive at your conclusion??? What makes YOU the all seeing all knowing future predictor??

Do tell....

[seckerich]

Jake I think the signature says it all---wannabe. :D

[Byron Smith]

Well, you guys can carp about DoubleD&#39;s comment about losing entries, but I&#39;m not sure anyone can say that this entire sorry episode is good for the class, IT or SCCA. Even giving all participants noble intentions, the way it has turned out (so far) has certainly turned off more than a few existing and potential racers.

I also looked at the class/car (325) last year, and decided to put my money into a different car/series.

I drop in from time to time to see what has happened, and at this point, I&#39;m very happy I did go elsewhere.

Best of luck...really. I hope it works out.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, you guys can carp about DoubleD&#39;s comment about losing entries, but I&#39;m not sure anyone can say that this entire sorry episode is good for the class, IT or SCCA. Even giving all participants noble intentions, the way it has turned out (so far) has certainly turned off more than a few existing and potential racers.

[/b]
No argument here. The various situations with this car have hurt ITS - both with cars trying to compete with it in various unrestricted and restricted forms, and now twice with Bimmer owners while the SCCA tries to correct a major classification mistake (2850).

It is the sincere hope of all involved that this is the LAST we see of this car on an agenda. The goal is the same competition potential as the rest of the class using a common process (in this case backing into it). We do have a group of silent owners who understand the issues and have been patient, VERY patient. All that can be said is that the CRB is working hard on getting this right, once and for all, weight or SIR.

Thanks for you input.

AB

[DoubleD]

You came to the conclusion...........and HOW did you arrive at your conclusion??? What makes YOU the all seeing all knowing future predictor??

Do tell....
[/b]

The ability to grasp the obvious hardly makes me all seeing.

Another example of this is my objection to the SIR mandate without testing. You and AB both asserted that testing was not necessary because the math was already done.

It&#39;s painfully obvious why the testing info has been kept confidential and it has nothing at all to do with the car owner&#39;s desire.

:wacko:

It&#39;s also reasonably obvious how this is all going to shake out. The E36 is going to end up with either a 33-35mm SIR or 300lbs. BMW drivers are screwed both ways to Sunday as a result. They&#39;ll have a non competitve car worth 30% less on the market than they were 5 months ago. But hey, who cares, right? BMW owners are just a bunch of talentless check writers anyway...

[Andy Bettencourt]

It&#39;s also reasonably obvious how this is all going to shake out. The E36 is going to end up with either a 33-35mm SIR or 300lbs. BMW drivers are screwed both ways to Sunday as a result. They&#39;ll have a non competitve car worth 30% less on the market than they were 5 months ago. But hey, who cares, right? BMW owners are just a bunch of talentless check writers anyway... [/b]

Everyone on the ITAC and CRB cares, bet on it. Your &#39;reasonably obvious&#39; assumptions are way off. Just sit tight and make your decision when the new rule comes out. Will any BMW guys be happy? No. Nobody wants a reduction in power no matter how fair it is to everyone else.

The fact you think the car will be non-competitive after this decision is handed down by the CRB says volumes about your bias.

Thankfully, I have talked with some very reasonable BMW guys recently on the phone. It&#39;s kept me sane.

AB

[lateapex911]

......It&#39;s also reasonably obvious how this is all going to shake out. The E36 is going to end up with either a 33-35mm SIR or 300lbs. BMW drivers are screwed both ways to Sunday as a result. They&#39;ll have a non competitve car worth 30% less on the market than they were 5 months ago. But hey, who cares, right? BMW owners are just a bunch of talentless check writers anyway...
[/b]

Since you quoted me, and posted a response, I will respond in kind.

A 35MM SIR???? And you say the car will "non competitive" as a result?

Prove it. Show me the math that shows that a 35MM SIR (or a 33, or a 34) will take enough power away that will "screw" the BMW drivers. HOW did you draw your conclusions?? Let&#39;s see the math, show us whatever you have. Otherwise the statement is pure and complete straw grabbing.

(Also, while you&#39;re at it, if you are making the same case for weight, lets see how you based your "screwed" conclusion on that as well. )

IF the car loses value, it will be because it will now be a requirement that the car be built to the nines to run at the front with the other cars that are built to the nines.

And don&#39;t tell me "who cares", which clearly implies that I and the rest of the commitees that are involved don&#39;t care. This thing has cost me time and cash, and it has cost others much more. If we didn&#39;t care, the decision would be a lot easier, the people around me would be less ticked off at me for taking days out to work on it, and my clients would be happier too.

And DON&#39;T build your debate on things taken out of context. Statements that an E36 can be very competitive without a full build, DO NOT mean the same thing as "BMW owners are just a bunch of talentless check writers"

I certainly never said, nor thought that, and you are doing a disservice to yourself and others with such a statement. Please find the quote where you feel that ascertation was made, and confront the writer with it.

I will say that I have actually grown respect for certain BMW racers here on the board over this, but others have lost my admiration. But...I am not stupid, and I know the difference between them.

[DoubleD]

Since you quoted me, and posted a response, I will respond in kind.

A 35MM SIR???? And you say the car will "non competitive" as a result?

Prove it. Show me the math that shows that a 35MM SIR (or a 33, or a 34) will take enough power away that will "screw" the BMW drivers. HOW did you draw your conclusions?? Let&#39;s see the math, show us whatever you have. Otherwise the statement is pure and complete straw grabbing.

(Also, while you&#39;re at it, if you are making the same case for weight, lets see how you based your "screwed" conclusion on that as well. )

[/b]

Why? That the SIR size can be simply calculated w/o real world testing is an ASSumption that has been debunked. You know it, Andy knows it, CRB knows it, and as soon as real results are released (with or without the CRB&#39;s blessing) everyone else will know it too. I simply refuse to follow you down the road of attempting to engineer on paper without testing.

As for the weight case, it&#39;s very simple. Because all cars are running on the same width wheels, weight does not affect them all in the same way. I literally laugh each time I read "just give them 300lbs because it&#39;s cheap and easy". 300lbs will require a lot of changes to suspension and a lot of testing to get cars handling properly...and that costs a lot of money. But BMW drivers are all made of money, right?




IF the car loses value, it will be because it will now be a requirement that the car be built to the nines to run at the front with the other cars that are built to the nines.

[/b]

It&#39;s losing value because the common perception is that SCCA wants to make it non competitive. It&#39;s also losing value because those who went out and "built to the nines" will have wasted money. An SIR, if it works properly, will make the high end equipment pointless.




I will say that I have actually grown respect for certain BMW racers here on the board over this, but others have lost my admiration. But...I am not stupid, and I know the difference between them.
[/b]

If your admiration meant anything to me, I might build and ITS car.

I won&#39;t be building an ITS car.

[lateapex911]

You need to read further....

I&#39;ve stated many times that an SIR has the potential to be the cheap solution... nowhere have i said lead was cheap and easy...although the implementation is, the set up and tuning are not. Lots&#39; of changes, some will be pricey. The potential also exists for the SIR to have unintended consequences...thats why the entite deadline was rolled back, to get a better handle on it all. Is that the mark of a club that is trying to amke a car uncompetitive? A club that doesn&#39;t care?

While you go on about designing on paper, real engineers did the calcs, but the CRB and the ITAC have taken the "proof is in the pudding" to heart and have tested. Does that sound like a club that is "trying to make the car uncompetitive"????? A club that doesn&#39;t care??? Doesn&#39;t seem like that to me.

A major point that otheres...guys who aren&#39;t in the class, or even IT (like you) have raised is that the club cares TOO much..that it should move on and stop wasting so much time ofver one car.

In an auction, it only takes two to define a market. So the popular consensus isn&#39;t always the determing factor of value, and the "value card" is a red herring anyway. The first order is to try to create a fair and equitable environment in which to race.

As it stands, the process shows that doesn&#39;t exist.

And because of a classing mistake, many other cars suffered in value...the flipside to your contention.

The goal here is to set the class right with the process, and let you guys build your cars, race your cars, (Well, not your car DD, ass you think you&#39;re getting screwed) and let the cream rise to the top.

Something tells me that the same sharp guys will be at the pointy end of the stick, just as before.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why? That the SIR size can be simply calculated w/o real world testing is an ASSumption that has been debunked. You know it, Andy knows it, CRB knows it, and as soon as real results are released (with or without the CRB&#39;s blessing) everyone else will know it too. I simply refuse to follow you down the road of attempting to engineer on paper without testing.[/b]

I, for one, can&#39;t wait to read your posts when the results come out. Really.



It&#39;s losing value because the common perception is that SCCA wants to make it non competitive.
[/b]

This statement alone speaks volumes! If you really think that then you havn&#39;t been listening - AT ALL.

Double DONE with you. Carry on.

[DoubleD]

I, for one, can&#39;t wait to read your posts when the results come out.
[/b]

Then post them. You have them.

edit: Or at least tell us why CRB felt compelled to test a 34mm SIR last weekend.

Engineering on paper is easier than making things actually work, aint it, Andy.

[Joe Harlan]

Then post them. You have them.

edit: Or at least tell us why CRB felt compelled to test a 34mm SIR last weekend.

Engineering on paper is easier than making things actually work, aint it, Andy.
[/b]


Lets see you have a car on the dyno. You have multiple SIR&#39;s on hand. You may one day want to speed this car up for a future class or maybe a different class...WTF would you not test it. At some point the engine will be blind to the SIR why not find out what size that is. Why not gather as much information as possible to deal with the whining naysayers like yourself. Dave I have to say that with an attitude like yours you won&#39;t be missed if you don&#39;t build a car. You have more desire to take pot shots at a group of people that are trying to be as open as possible. There was a time when you couldn&#39;t get a adhoc or CRB member to speak directly on any subject. It is crappy attitudes and crappy accusations like I have seen around here lately that makes the old system a better system.
Why don&#39;t you just back off save the shots and wait like the rest of us for the information.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Then post them. You have them.

edit: Or at least tell us why CRB felt compelled to test a 34mm SIR last weekend.

Engineering on paper is easier than making things actually work, aint it, Andy. [/b]

Wow. Not enough testing, too much testing...rushing this through, taking too much time...peachy.

Would love you to answer Kirk&#39;s question in the other SIR thread. Would be insightful. I&#39;ll repost it here so you don&#39;t miss it by accident...


ON the topic, I would love to have a 325 owner describe the process and/or result, coming out of the SIR tests, that would satisfy them to the degree that they wouldn&#39;t feel cheated.

K[/b]

[lateapex911]

OK, I have to admit, attitude is everything.

And DD, your attitude...well it....

Well, to be charitable, and really whats important here, is that it is just not part of a solution, or even a reasonable discussion.

Over and out.

[Ron Earp]

Engineering on paper is easier than making things actually work, aint it, Andy.
[/b]

DoubleD, with comments like that and others you have written it makes it really difficult to have any sympathy at all for BMW racers. I am against SIRs but I can plainly see that there are a lot of hard working volunteers in this club who are working to make the BMW fit in ITS. They are donating their time to sort out this problem with the BMW. They are not trying to make the car uncompetitive in SCCA, quite the opposite, they are trying to make it fit.

If you or the other BMW racers don&#39;t like it there is always BMWCCA. I recently read the BMWCCA report that shows there were 444 drivers competing last year and the largest class was JP, with 70 drivers. Definitely not nearly as large as the SCCA or as competitive, but it is there. However I suppose that is why many of the BMW drivers just don&#39;t go straight over to BMWCCA and forget the SCCA - they like the SCCA and the competition racing in the SCCA.

If you are planning on staying it should be remembered there are a lot of folks working hard to make sure you can still competitively race in the SCCA and they deserve some respect.

Ron

[Eagle7]

DoubleD, with comments like that and others you have written it makes it really difficult to have any sympathy at all for BMW racers. ...
If you or the other BMW racers don&#39;t like it ...
If you are planning on staying ...
Ron
[/b]
Ron, don&#39;t lump him in with BMW owners or racers. Apparently he&#39;s neither. That makes it pretty hard to figure out why he&#39;s so ballistic over this. I don&#39;t see him up in arms over all the other models that got weight thrown at them - what&#39;s his deal with the BMW?

[dj10]

I&#39;m going to go out on a limb here a little and say something about the SIR from all that I&#39;ve heard and read, since I&#39;m a BMW driver and this will effect me the most.
I know my dyno numbers at least last years numbers, and I&#39;ve seen other and know of other BMW dyno numbers on both a mustang and dyno jet. IF and it is a big if :D , these SIR&#39;s are tested properly and are given to us are the right combination for the E36 325 BMW, with the HP as promised, I will have no problem with them at all! If installed properly with a well tuned inline 6 cyl., all I will say is there should be very good competition and the wins will be there if the BMW is driven well.
To all critics, please back off the ITAC & CBR, let them finish the tests they need, give them some time. If this S@#$ doesn&#39;t work, there&#39;s pleanty of time to HANG them later! :happy204: (kidding of coarse)

[seckerich]

I&#39;m going to go out on a limb here a little and say something about the SIR from all that I&#39;ve heard and read, since I&#39;m a BMW driver and this will effect me the most.
I know my dyno numbers at least last years numbers, and I&#39;ve seen other and know of other BMW dyno numbers on both a mustang and dyno jet. IF and it is a big if :D , these SIR&#39;s are tested properly and are given to us are the right combination for the E36 325 BMW, with the HP as promised, I will have no problem with them at all! If installed properly with a well tuned inline 6 cyl., all I will say is there should be very good competition and the wins will be there if the BMW is driven well.
To all critics, please back off the ITAC & CBR, let them finish the tests they need, give them some time. If this S@#$ doesn&#39;t work, there&#39;s pleanty of time to HANG them later! :happy204: (kidding of coarse)
[/b]
That gentlemen is a BMW driver with class!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

I&#39;m going to go out on a limb here a little and say something about the SIR from all that I&#39;ve heard and read, since I&#39;m a BMW driver and this will effect me the most.
I know my dyno numbers at least last years numbers, and I&#39;ve seen other and know of other BMW dyno numbers on both a mustang and dyno jet. IF and it is a big if :D , these SIR&#39;s are tested properly and are given to us are the right combination for the E36 325 BMW, with the HP as promised, I will have no problem with them at all! If installed properly with a well tuned inline 6 cyl., all I will say is there should be very good competition and the wins will be there if the BMW is driven well.
To all critics, please back off the ITAC & CBR, let them finish the tests they need, give them some time. If this S@#$ doesn&#39;t work, there&#39;s pleanty of time to HANG them later! :happy204: (kidding of coarse) [/b]

DJ,

Thanks for the temp repreive! Let me ask you this: Can you specifically answer Kirk&#39;s question - and be as detailed as you can?

AB

[dj10]

DJ,

Thanks for the temp repreive! Let me ask you this: Can you specifically answer Kirk&#39;s question - and be as detailed as you can?

AB
[/b]
AB, I can&#39;t find any post in here for Kirk. Point me in the right direction & I&#39;ll try.
AB this is not a repreive, this is MY observation & opinion of everything I&#39;ve read and experienced from when I started running my BMW in ITS last year to today.

[Andy Bettencourt]

AB, I can&#39;t find any post in here for Kirk. Point me in the right direction & I&#39;ll try.
AB this is not a repreive, this is MY observation & opinion of everything I&#39;ve read and experienced from when I started running my BMW in ITS last year to today.
[/b]


ON the topic, I would love to have a 325 owner describe the process and/or result, coming out of the SIR tests, that would satisfy them to the degree that they wouldn&#39;t feel cheated.

K[/b]

AB

[JLawton]

I can&#39;t believe I&#39;m getting sucked into this argument........But I can&#39;t help myself after some of the above comments.

I have to say I&#39;m a little tired of the complaining of some of the BMW racers (and some that aren&#39;t even racers yet....I can&#39;t understand THAT complaint!!). You haven&#39;t even run a race yet and some of you are acting like you might as well send your car to the junk yard. Give it a break!! Go out and race, see what happens and if there are serious problems, get involved in the process to change it!! Don&#39;t whine about how tough your life is!! Plus, you have no idea what it&#39;s like to drive an uncompetitve car. If you think your BMW is going to be a big loser all of the sudden, sell it and buy an RX7 (or whatever car you think will be whuppen&#39; up on your uncompetitve BMW.....)

And lay off the the people who are trying to make positive changes. Your making this personal. Again, if you don&#39;t like what&#39;s going on, get involved in the process.

Again, this wasn&#39;t directed at all the BMW racers, just the constant complainers......

Duck and cover.........

[its66]

I&#39;m going to go out on a limb here a little and say something about the SIR from all that I&#39;ve heard and read, since I&#39;m a BMW driver and this will effect me the most.
I know my dyno numbers at least last years numbers, and I&#39;ve seen other and know of other BMW dyno numbers on both a mustang and dyno jet. IF and it is a big if :D , these SIR&#39;s are tested properly and are given to us are the right combination for the E36 325 BMW, with the HP as promised, I will have no problem with them at all! If installed properly with a well tuned inline 6 cyl., all I will say is there should be very good competition and the wins will be there if the BMW is driven well.
To all critics, please back off the ITAC & CBR, let them finish the tests they need, give them some time. If this S@#$ doesn&#39;t work, there&#39;s pleanty of time to HANG them later! :happy204: (kidding of coarse)
[/b]
:happy204:

[Bill Miller]

dj,

EXCELLENT post! Very classy! :023: :smilie_pokal: :birra:

DoubleD


I won&#39;t be building an ITS car.

[/b]

That&#39;s really too bad. Would love to see just how you would do.

[Harry Balszac]

dj,

EXCELLENT post! Very classy! :023: :smilie_pokal: :birra:

DoubleD
That&#39;s really too bad. Would love to see just how you would do.
[/b]


He would do GREAT. He is a very talented racer.

[kthomas]

If you think your BMW is going to be a big loser all of the sudden, sell it and buy an RX7 (or whatever car you think will be whuppen&#39; up on your uncompetitve BMW.....)

And lay off the the people who are trying to make positive changes. Your making this personal. Again, if you don&#39;t like what&#39;s going on, get involved in the process.

Again, this wasn&#39;t directed at all the BMW racers, just the constant complainers......

[/b]

Gee, I bet half the current BMW drivers are people whose RX7 or 240Z was no longer competitive in a CLASS THAT DOESN&#39;T GUARANTEE COMPETITIVENESS and so they went and bought a BMW. Now you want them to go buy an RX7.

I believe the common thread to those that are constant complainers is that they are loooosers. Same deal with the RR shocks. Can&#39;t win within the rules, gotta go change them.

Any change to a fixed set of rules is not a positive change, unless it involves safety, IMHO. People take a look at the class and the rules and decide whether or not to compete. You build a car and then a bunch of losers complain to change the rules. You want a level playing field then go race SRF. What are we going to do when Chet Wittel wins another ARRC with a SIR?

Now that I got that out of my system......

[lateapex911]

What are we going to do when Chet Wittel wins another ARRC with a SIR?

Now that I got that out of my system......
[/b]

Well, if you&#39;re asking me, I&#39;ll just smile that the cream has risen yet again....

It would make me happy though if a Z car and an RX-7 and maybe a Civic and an Integra all shared the lead for a lap or two in there...

Ooops..sorry...a Jensen and a Triumph too!