SIR TEST RESULTS

[gpeluso]

You know I can't say 'as fact' on the 15whp. It was posted as my interpretation of actual results from first hand accounts and video I have watched. The only way we can tell 100% is if you post your dyno results from a dynojet....care to do so?
[/b]

AB,
Guess who owns Rob's old car....................................me, but we'll never know since I blew the engine at MidOhio this past August. All his hard work ruined with a poor shift. I understand the car did well in 2004.

:lol:
Greg

[Andy Bettencourt]

AB,
Guess who owns Rob's old car....................................me, but we'll never know since I blew the engine at MidOhio this past August. All his hard work ruined with a poor shift. I understand the car did well in 2004.

:lol:
Greg [/b]

That's too bad. It was a real good car...but Rob can provide us with the number should he decide too. Am I wrong to assume that he provided them to a prospective buyer? Are you telling me that you don't know what it made?

AB

[MikeBlaszczak]

Mike,

Do you even read what you're typing? As Andy said, don't look for sympathy from too many people over this. You want a car that runs at the front w/o putting the time and money into developing both the car and the driver. Nobody else gets that kind of break. That's another reason that ALL cars should be treated the same.
[/b]
Do you even think about what other people have written before you fire off an acerbic response in return? Or are you so sure you have all the answers that you have nothing to learn from anyone else's opinon, and just go straight to the flaming?

What basis would you possibly have to assert that I haven't developed myself as a driver? That's as pompous and rude as it is wrong. Post like yours, focused on rhetoric and insults, lacking a desire to understand the point of view of others, are what make extracting real information from this forum so difficult.

Is it just that you're too ineloquent to express your opinion adequately that you have to resort to challenging my ability as a driver?

Back to the issue at hand: of course the BMWs aren't as prepared and are still competitive, and are overdogs when prepared to the limits (or beyond). They're more than twenty years newer than some of the cars they're running against. Twenty years! The Datsun guys I talk to aren't upset about spending time or money working on prep. They're more worried about getting parts to keep the things running in the first place. (Aside from the introduction of the 240Z, other memorable events of 1969 include the moon landing, the final public performance of the Beatles, and the Boeing 747 made its maiden voyage.)

Most of the E30's and Integras I race against aren't aggressively prepared, either. Sure enough, the ones that are beat me.

I think the classification problems the SCCA is having are caused by the lack of a plan to face progress. Newer models enter ITS every year. Those new models are, at a baseline, better prepared than the older cars in the class. This is going to keep happening—it's progress, and it is undeniable.

Successful organizations plan ahead to deal with progress. After all, it's forseeable that newer cars would out-perform older cars; that they'd have a higher performance potential, at least, and therefore be able to give closer to optimal results with less tweaking. Progress eventually includes abandoning the old and focusing on the new. If there are cars that are too slow to be in the class, let's move them to another class. Or move the newer cars to their own class where they can enjoy their competition without intefering with those who haven't moved on. Perhaps restricting modifications is a good idea; instead of an SIR, why not force the E36es to keep their stock air box?

Instead of hampering progress with weight penalties and intake restrictors, why not let the sport track progress?

[MikeBlaszczak]

I would prefer a mediocare engine with a good suspension instead of the other way around.[/b]

Thanks for your kind note, dj. I appreciate your honesty and sensible contributions to the forum.

Meanwhile, that's exactly where I'm at: I'm thrilled to pieces with my suspension, and my engine needs work. Perhaps, if my engine improves, then I'll end out out-driving my suspension. Or, maybe I'll move to a different class where I can concentrate on racing instead of rule changes.

[Bill Miller]

Okay, I'll bite. It's the thread I started, after all.

It's too late for me not to feel cheated. I don't know how to prep my car for this year; instead of having months between the rules settling down and my first race, I'm going to have weeks. Maybe.

That aside, I want to know that only the highly-prepared cars are affected. I had a two great seasons in a row; I ran neck-and-neck with a Datsun, and had a great time chasing around an E30 and an Integra. There was no disparity, no walkaways. I spent several races within one second of my competition.

Adding too much weight will take that away. Taking away too much air will take that away from me. And if lose the fun I've been having, I'll feel cheated.

So I'd like to see the SIR tests involve an E36 that isn't making these amazing horsepower numbers; anything over 200 hp seems quite incredible to me. What will it do to my modest setup? Andy, in berating those of us who "don't know anything about SIR technology" says that's exactly what will happen.

I'll believe it when I see it.
[/b]


Mike,

Go through and read your post again. Just about every sentence has "I" in it. All you seem concerned about is how it impacts you, and how you have 'been cheated'. What about all those other drivers who's cars were marginalized by the mis-classification of an overdog in ITS? What about all those ITS drivers who were getting moved father down the grid by less than full-prep efforts (not unlike yours), and getting blown into the weeds by an all-out effort w/ a top driver?

Instead of wanting what's best for ITS in general, all you care about is what's good for Mike, and what will continue to let Mike have fun. You called my previous post ascerbic. Hardly. You also think it was rude that I suggest that you need to further develop the driver. Well Mike, I don't know too many people (some that have been racing for quite some time) that feel that there's no more to squeeze out of the nut behind the wheel. But, I'm not surprised at your attitude, given the selfish nature of the post I quoted above. You want a humbling experience? Put a known hot shoe in your car and see how many seconds a lap faster than you they are. If two years in Regional Club Racing makes you a fully developed driver, then you might want to check your messages, I think Roger Penske is trying to get in touch w/ you.


Instead of hampering progress with weight penalties and intake restrictors, why not let the sport track progress?[/b]

Just wanted to comment on this one. First off, if the E36 gets lead, it's not a 'weight penalty', it's because the published spec weight was incorrect. As others have pointed out in other threads, we haven't heard any of the drivers of the other cars that got weight complain about a 'weight penalty'. The E36 should weigh ~3150#, based on the results of the same process that all other IT cars get put through. The fact that the CRB is looking to find an alternate way to make the car fit the class, is a GIFT. It's the responses from people like you that make me think that the better alternative is to declassify the car.

[Joe Harlan]

Back to the issue at hand: of course the BMWs aren't as prepared and are still competitive, and are overdogs when prepared to the limits (or beyond). They're more than twenty years newer than some of the cars they're running against. Twenty years! The Datsun guys I talk to aren't upset about spending time or money working on prep. They're more worried about getting parts to keep the things running in the first place. (Aside from the introduction of the 240Z, other memorable events of 1969 include the moon landing, the final public performance of the Beatles, and the Boeing 747 made its maiden voyage.)

Most of the E30's and Integras I race against aren't aggressively prepared, either. Sure enough, the ones that are beat me.



[/b]
Mike, I am not sre which 240Z guys you are talking to but since I build engines for about every 240 in the PNW I think you are wrong. I don't know of a single one that isn't tired of seeing marginally prepared BMW's kicking their butts. The fact that 240z's are 35 years old doesn't make them a bad car and I don't understand your elitist attitude toward them. If a class is properly balanced there is no reason that multiple marques shouldn't competitive. You have admitted to having a wrecking yard bottom end and a fresh head with a stock exhaust manifold on your ride. You are beating cars that have 5 to 8 k in an engine every 2nd year. These cars have 2500 dollar exhaust system and run 800 bucks worth of new tires every other weekend to keep up with your underdeveloped BMW that if I remember correct is running on toyo tires and likely getting 4 to 5 weekendds out of them. This adjustment was not done because Mike B. owns a BMW, it was done tobring balance back to one of the best classes in SCCA. You are lucky in the fact that since you race with ICSCC and you can always just run your car in CP or DP and not change a thing.

[Geo]

The reason you are having a hard time with it is you are essentially trying to compare indivdual data points. Forget the track data for the moment.[/b]

Indeed. If track data were driving this (no pun intended), then it would most definitely be a comp adjustment. But track data isn't driving this. In fact, this isn't an isolated adjustment. It's simply part of reworking the classification of virtually every car in the ITCS. Some went up. Some went down. Some stayed the same. And one is in limbo.



When the ITAC uses the forumla used to class ALL the cars in ITS it spits out a weight. Every other car in ITS got that weight assigned and a lot of cars got adjustments up or down. Except the BMW. The weight spit out for it was 3150 or 3200 lbs.

Now, all the other cars in ITS use the assigned weight, why not the BMW?

I, nor the others, can help the car was classed too light to begin with. Now the adjustment seems excessive, but it wouldn't seem excessive if the car was closer to the target, like it used to be, at 29XX lbs. [/b]

And to put this into perspective.....

For those who don't like the idea of the E36 having to weigh 300 lbs more or have to use an SIR, imagine now how the rest of the field felt when the E36 was classified 300 lbs too light! I'm not trying to stir up trouble. But just think about how that is received. A new car comes into the class is 300 lbs too light!

[lateapex911]

Well, Geo, a bunch of guys thought, "Holy helium Batman, I bet the E36 can ROCK at that weight! Lets get one before they smarten up and change it!"....

[benspeed]

Jake - I was very close to buying an E36 recognizing how dominant it was. Ended up going SPO. No haggling over rules in that class.

I did a test and I drove my Mazda and then a average built BMW. My RX7 is a top car at every level. The bimmer was just a better car - newer, more modern but the motor is just awesome.

I still have my RX7 though and I'll drag her out every now and then to mess with my ITS pals. :D

[dj10]

The bimmer was just a better car - newer, more modern but the motor is just awesome.
[/b]
Those damn Germans sure can build a car! B)
It's a shame that the SCCA likes the rice burners & GM better, look at today's T1 and yester year when the Audi's dominated Trans AM. But IMSA did the same to the Audi's after a few years. :rolleyes:

[Joe Harlan]

Those damn Germans sure can build a car! B)
It's a shame that the SCCA likes the rice burners & GM better, look at today's T1 and yester year when the Audi's dominated Trans AM. But IMSA did the same to the Audi's after a few years. :rolleyes:
[/b]


How do ya figure? The BMW was wrongly classed and is being corrected after 8 years or what ever? I don't think it's an anti german thing.

[lateapex911]

He's KIDDING Joe!

[Joe Harlan]

He's KIDDING Joe!
[/b]

Sorry boys, I just here that deal way to often from the porcha people...... :(

[AJ 14]

All I can say is i'm glad I sold my 325 cause you guys are gonna get hosed----no pun intended AJ formerly a 325 its driver .......

[lateapex911]

Thanks for stopping in and cheering up the place with your gloating AJ.....

[MikeBlaszczak]

Mike, I am not sre which 240Z guys you are talking to but since I build engines for about every 240 in the PNW I think you are wrong. I don't know of a single one that isn't tired of seeing marginally prepared BMW's kicking their butts.[/b]
Then you must know Jack and Lincoln Burns, right? I've raced pretty closely with them. Their downfall was crashing too much, not my car being an overdog. When they stayed on the track, we raced well. They usually won at PIR (their home track) and I usually won at SIR (my home track).

Skip Yocom? We've had a great time racing together when Skip has had his car running right, and during our long conversations he's never said anything to me at all about being frustrated with my car's preparedness level or his inability to keep up. In fact, he's specifically who I'm thinking of when I think about a Z driver coming over to shake my hand after a race. He's a great sport.

How about Ron Tanner? He hands it to me every time we race--pretty severely, in fact. The only time I recall managing to beat him was when he badly overcooked the chicane at PIR and couldn't get back in the race. Given that record, I can't imagine that he's complaining about my beating him all the time.

Looking at the 2005 results for the PNW region (http://www.nwr-scca.org/race/results.htm), here's how the ITS entries went:

Race #1: two 944s, though only one started
Race #2: five 944s
Race #3: three 944s
Race #4: three 944s
Race #5: two 944s
Race #6: Just one 944
Race #7: Two 944s

There's no BMWs there. In fact, there aren't any Z cars in the first place.

The story is the same for the 2005 season in the Oregon region (http://www.oregonscca.com/results/2005/index.html):

Race #1: A 240Z beat an RX-7.
Race #2: Only one 240Z
Race #3: A 240Z beat an BMW. (But I'm pretty sure this BMW is an E30.) From 3rd place, it's a 944, two Z cars in a row, and another 944.
Race #4: Five 240Z cars, no other marques
Race #5: Just one ITS car. It's a Z.
Race #6: One 240Z.
Race #7: A single 240Z.
Race #8: Only one 944.
Race #9: A Mazda RX7. A 944 entered, but DNS.

There's only one BMW car, and it finished behind a 240Z. Will's best time in his E30 was about 0.900 seconds slower than the Z car. No other BMWs showed up all year.

Who is it that you're thinking of, Joe?



The fact that 240z's are 35 years old doesn't make them a bad car and I don't understand your elitist attitude toward them. [/b]
Nope. It just makes 'em old cars.



You are beating cars that have 5 to 8 k in an engine every 2nd year. These cars have 2500 dollar exhaust system and run 800 bucks worth of new tires[/b]
My last engine was right in the middle of that range, and my tyre budget is within 10%. I think I got four races out of a set last year -- on my rains.



This adjustment was not done because Mike B. owns a BMW, it was done tobring balance back to one of the best classes in SCCA. You are lucky in the fact that since you race with ICSCC and you can always just run your car in CP or DP and not change a thing.
[/b]Indeed, I am fortunate for that. I'll probably end up in RS and SPM this year instead of ITS and CP.

[MikeBlaszczak]

Mike,

Go through and read your post again. Just about every sentence has "I" in it. All you seem concerned about is how it impacts you, and how you have 'been cheated'. [/b]

Bill, go re-read the post to which I was responding. Of course my response has "I" in it often; someone asked the opinion of a 325 driver, and I provided it. The post I was responding to specifically asked how BMW drivers wouldn't feel cheated. And so it follows that came up, too.

Someone asked about our side of the coin, and I engaged them, trying to build understanding. How will your contributions to the thread help build that understanding?



You called my previous post ascerbic. Hardly.[/b]
Almost every sentence in your post has "you" in it. You've gone almost completely ad hominem. The rule issue isn't about me, so I can't figure out why you keep telling me about myself.



You also think it was rude that I suggest that you need to further develop the driver.[/b]
Nope. I wrote that it was rude for you to posit, without basis, that I wanted to run at the front without putting time or money into the driver. Check the post yourself -- it's right there.

[Joe Harlan]

Then you must know Jack and Lincoln Burns, right? I've raced pretty closely with them. Their downfall was crashing too much, not my car being an overdog. When they stayed on the track, we raced well. They usually won at PIR (their home track) and I usually won at SIR (my home track).

Skip Yocom? We've had a great time racing together when Skip has had his car running right, and during our long conversations he's never said anything to me at all about being frustrated with my car's preparedness level or his inability to keep up. In fact, he's specifically who I'm thinking of when I think about a Z driver coming over to shake my hand after a race. He's a great sport.

How about Ron Tanner? He hands it to me every time we race--pretty severely, in fact. The only time I recall managing to beat him was when he badly overcooked the chicane at PIR and couldn't get back in the race. Given that record, I can't imagine that he's complaining about my beating him all the time.

Looking at the 2005 results for the PNW region (http://www.nwr-scca.org/race/results.htm), here's how the ITS entries went:

Race #1: two 944s, though only one started
Race #2: five 944s
Race #3: three 944s
Race #4: three 944s
Race #5: two 944s
Race #6: Just one 944
Race #7: Two 944s

There's no BMWs there. In fact, there aren't any Z cars in the first place.

The story is the same for the 2005 season in the Oregon region (http://www.oregonscca.com/results/2005/index.html):

Race #1: A 240Z beat an RX-7.
Race #2: Only one 240Z
Race #3: A 240Z beat an BMW. (But I'm pretty sure this BMW is an E30.) From 3rd place, it's a 944, two Z cars in a row, and another 944.
Race #4: Five 240Z cars, no other marques
Race #5: Just one ITS car. It's a Z.
Race #6: One 240Z.
Race #7: A single 240Z.
Race #8: Only one 944.
Race #9: A Mazda RX7. A 944 entered, but DNS.

There's only one BMW car, and it finished behind a 240Z. Will's best time in his E30 was about 0.900 seconds slower than the Z car. No other BMWs showed up all year.

Who is it that you're thinking of, Joe?
Nope. It just makes 'em old cars.
My last engine was right in the middle of that range, and my tyre budget is within 10%. I think I got four races out of a set last year -- on my rains.

Indeed, I am fortunate for that. I'll probably end up in RS and SPM this year instead of ITS and CP.
[/b]

Mike, I know every one of those cars considering I built every engine in them, I built both of the Burns cars from the ground up, I have Skips car in my shop and Tanners new engine on the bench. BTW Skip is to good a sport to come over and say anything one way or another. Your car is really the least of anyone's issues but it will become one should you decide to actually build the thing to it's fullest. Why do you think it's OK for you to compete with cars that are fully prepped in an underdeveloped car?


The point I think you miss is this adjustment is not about you. The timing has nothing to do with you. The fact that you don't see a problem with the car is really not my problem. I won't respond any further here because I don't want to make this about you. This is about a car that was misclassed in the beginning and nothing more. This is also a change in a rule no different than any other adjustment and while the timing may suck for you SCCA is a national club and their are races going on year round so somebody would have hated the timing no matter what.

[mlytle]

This is also a change in a rule no different than any other adjustment and while the timing may suck for you SCCA is a national club and their are races going on year round so somebody would have hated the timing no matter what.
[/b]

incorrect. if the rule change had put forth a proper lead time for compliance and been effective with the start of a new year, then there could have been no complaints about the timing.

a few weeks of lead time for a major change that occurs mid-year? heck yeah there will be folks hating the timing.

[lateapex911]

....Indeed, I am fortunate for that. I'll probably end up in RS and SPM this year instead of ITS and CP.
[/b]

Mike, I am curious, why?

Because the car will, in theory, be required to be a top prep car to run at the front?

Or, you don't have the (choose one or all) the time, the money, the inclination to acheive the top prep level and you don't like running anywhere but the front?

Or you think the whole thing is unfair to the entire class and won't participate ?

Or, ?????

Not understanding this.....

I really want to understand the reasoning behind such a decision.

[gpeluso]

:unsure:
Back to the topic heading "RESULTS" . ITAC and CRB it is now March 13. Updates? Delays? More tests? Conclusions? Time frame? New Effective date? Something? Anything?


Greg

[lateapex911]

Can you say with 100% confidence that it was at least 15hp as a fact? There are more factors than just hp. I think Chris makes many valid points. At some tracks horsepower makes a big difference and other tracks it isn't a big factor. A 100% driver with a 80% car can beat a 90% driver with a 100% car at this level. We should make this a claimer class like in karting.

I hope all of this works itself out for the best - so far it seems like a disaster. Time will tell.
[/b]

I was skimming back trying to get a reference for the 13th date, and I came across this.

A "claimer class"?

How do you determine pricing? And what if, for example, a guy "claims" a car...and then the seller waits an event or two, and protests the new owner, and the car is found to be illegal?

Messssy.......

Regarding the results, I imagine that the 3/20 issue of Fastrack will have something, but at this point we on the ITAC don't know either. I would hope that the date is pushed back, but thats just my opinion.

[dj10]

Regarding the results, I imagine that the 3/20 issue of Fastrack will have something, but at this point we on the ITAC don't know either. I would hope that the date is pushed back, but thats just my opinion. [/b]

Hell I hope they are like the US Congress & Senate, take all damn year :happy204: . I'm ready to run 05 configuration! :D If they take long enough, maybe all the other ITS guys will forget about it. B)

[gpeluso]

Regarding the results, I imagine that the 3/20 issue of Fastrack will have something, but at this point we on the ITAC don't know either. I would hope that the date is pushed back, but thats just my opinion.
[/b]

<_< Jake, are we to assume that the ITAC gave its recommendations to the CRB???? If so where is the test results that were promised. I highly doubt that the Fastrack issue will go into detail about the tests. Something sure does smell fishy. Let&#39;s go back to when you were covering these tests..........from what you promised reading Fastrack to get the decision is very misleading.

Greg

[lateapex911]

Well, I don&#39;t have the results, so therefore can&#39;t release the results and their conclusions.

I was present for some of the tests that have occurred, but not all. I have heard third hand about further possible tests being conducted, but again, I don&#39;t know the whole picture. I&#39;d like to lay out the whole picture for you, but I just don&#39;t have the picture to lay out, and I am sure you can understand that I&#39;m not in the position to release incomplete information.

I too am anxious to see the results.

[Knestis]

... A "claimer class"? ...[/b]
Lore has it that, back when Showroom Stock had a claim rule in the &#39;70s, a guy was winning with a Pinto. It got claimed and, in retaliation, he is said to have buttonholed the new owner and carefully explained that he knew every single illegal part on the car and that if he got beat, he was going to protest one part - and only one part - at each race, until the new guy caught a clue.

K

[Bildon]

>>> If they take long enough, maybe all the other ITS guys will forget about it.

Forget about what Dan? :blink:
:P

[Z3_GoCar]

Lore has it that, back when Showroom Stock had a claim rule in the &#39;70s, a guy was winning with a Pinto. It got claimed and, in retaliation, he is said to have buttonholed the new owner and carefully explained that he knew every single illegal part on the car and that if he got beat, he was going to protest one part - and only one part - at each race, until the new guy caught a clue.

K
[/b]


And what would a guy with a 510 do with a pinto engine?? :P

Claimer classes are best when everyone uses the same engine, for example circle track modifieds that all run small block chevy&#39;s. I knew of a guy that tried a different strategy, he gave up the plentiful parts of the chevy for more cubes in a 500 cube caddie. He always said, "If I finish top five go ahead and claim me, then figure out how to not make it a boat anchor"

James

[Knestis]

It was a little before I started going to SCCA races but it&#39;s my understanding that under the old SS rules, you claimed the ENTIRE CAR.

K

[Gary L]

It was a little before I started going to SCCA races but it&#39;s my understanding that under the old SS rules, you claimed the ENTIRE CAR.

K [/b]

That is correct... the claim amount was based on the MSRP for each car, with an adder to allow for required safety equipment.