View Full Version : SIR TEST RESULTS
Has anyone heard anything?
dj
gpeluso
02-12-2006, 06:09 PM
:P DJ, I keep looking also...............is no news good news?
Greg
Has anyone heard anything?
dj
[/b]
:P DJ, I keep looking also...............is no news good news?
Greg
[/b]
No news is just that. NO NEWS.
lateapex911
02-13-2006, 02:20 AM
Hey guys-
Sorry to keep you hanging. Had to take a day off to attend the test, so I had to make up the lost time today, and we had this thing called "Bliazzard 06"....which has kept me busy diggin out.
I'll write up a report after work tomorrow.
mlytle
02-13-2006, 01:19 PM
Hey guys-
Sorry to keep you hanging. Had to take a day off to attend the test, so I had to make up the lost time today, and we had this thing called "Bliazzard 06"....which has kept me busy diggin out.
I'll write up a report after work tomorrow.
[/b]
ah gee, what's a couple feet of snow? :D we got a whole 8 inches in dc.
thanks, standing by.
steve s
02-13-2006, 02:42 PM
don't complain guys you don't know how good you have it up there !!! down here its freezing today were going to be around 50 degrees. :P
thank you jake for your devotion to the sport.and the BS.
don't complain guys you don't know how good you have it up there !!! down here its freezing today were going to be around 50 degrees. :P
thank you jake for your devotion to the sport.and the BS.
[/b]
Steve you should be shot for this post about the temperatures in Fla.! 19 deg. here! :D
I can't believe in my wildest imagination AB has absolutely nothing to say about the SIR test! Not even an opinion? :D
Andy Bettencourt
02-13-2006, 05:05 PM
I can't believe in my wildest imagination AB has absolutely nothing to say about the SIR test! Not even an opinion? :D [/b]
Oh, I have plenty...but Jake was AT the test, so it makes sense that he represents the ITAC in this particular instance. :rolleyes:
Unfortunately, it may be a little longer to get some info out there as we have two data points that don't jive with each other. Further testing is scheduled.
AB
Oh, I have plenty...but Jake was AT the test, so it makes sense that he represents the ITAC in this particular instance. :rolleyes:
Unfortunately, it may be a little longer to get some info out there as we have two data points that don't jive with each other. Further testing is scheduled.
AB
[/b]
AB, I hope you feel that this test was a positive step in the right direction. Can you tell me what kind of dyno was used?
I think there were going to be some gliches somewhere but the main thing is to keep a positive attiude and to keep the goal in site. For one, I'm thankful to those who were involved. The SCCA should reimburse you something especially since more testing is required.
dj
gpeluso
02-13-2006, 05:49 PM
:018: AB,
Does that mean that all the results will not be given? What's a little longer?
How could there be any confusion, AB at first I thought it was so clear cut..........I hope all results are reported............whether they make sense or not.
Greg
Oh, I have plenty...but Jake was AT the test, so it makes sense that he represents the ITAC in this particular instance. :rolleyes:
Unfortunately, it may be a little longer to get some info out there as we have two data points that don't jive with each other. Further testing is scheduled.
AB
[/b]
Andy Bettencourt
02-13-2006, 06:33 PM
:018: AB,
Does that mean that all the results will not be given? What's a little longer?
How could there be any confusion, AB at first I thought it was so clear cut..........I hope all results are reported............whether they make sense or not.
Greg
[/b]
Why are you shaking your finger at me? We have results that conflict - so we need more info and time to make the right decision for the competitors in ITS, both BMW guys and others.
Why do I get the feeling some of you are always looking for a fight?
<_<
AB
gpeluso
02-13-2006, 06:55 PM
:happy204:
AB,
I'm just asking if we can get all of the results of the tests. If you need more time or info to make a decision ,fine. I am not asking what the final decision is going to be. Uncensored data is what I'm looking for. I'm sure your working on the proper solution. The data that doesn't make sense may help us when it comes time to fit the SIR, the data happened for some reason. See I gave you a happy face!
Greg
Why are you shaking your finger at me? We have results that conflict - so we need more info and time to make the right decision for the competitors in ITS, both BMW guys and others.
Why do I get the feeling some of you are always looking for a fight?
<_<
AB
[/b]
Banzai240
02-13-2006, 06:59 PM
Why do I get the feeling some of you are always looking for a fight?
<_<
AB
[/b]
It's that Bullseye located direction on your back, Andy!
Guys, When we have some results that make sense and something other than just speculation, we'll tell you about it...
You would think by now that you'd have SOME level of trust that we will let you know what's going on... It's not like we have a track record of doing otherwise... :wacko:
From what I've been hearing, there is a VERY concerted effort to get to the bottom of all this and get the information needed to clarify all this... Not something youve been accustomed to seeing, so I understand your skepticism. ;)
Andy Bettencourt
02-13-2006, 07:04 PM
Nobody is ever going to be happy if the results aren't what they want. They will find a way to disagree with the conclusion.
Having said that, I am confident that the CRB will provide all the info - and the conclusion - when the information is conclusive.
AB
Nobody is ever going to be happy if the results aren't what they want. They will find a way to disagree with the conclusion.
Having said that, I am confident that the CRB will provide all the info - and the conclusion - when the information is conclusive.
AB
[/b]
AB, don't be such a pessimist. To quote a old cliche' "you can please some of the people some of the time but not all the people all the time". The one's you have to please are the one who really want to see if this experiment will work and for all the right reasons. Darin speaks about trust, one thing I've learned by being in business for over 32+ years, trust and respect are earned, and it goes both ways. You guys should have no problem knowing who the people are that are trying to be open minded enough to understand what is trying to be accomplished. All I can say is ignor the radicals and deal with the rationals.
I have asked this question many times and never got a response. When you deal with HP figures, WHAT DYNO IS BEING USED? What dyno was used in this test?
Thanks
dj
Andy Bettencourt
02-13-2006, 08:38 PM
The info will not be leaked out little by little. A full report will summarize. We want to use different cars, with different prep levels and different dyno's as data points. Some the CRB will test, some info will come in from members.
And dj, that ain't pessimism, that is realism. Nothing wrong with not being able to please everyone, just one of a few reasons info won't be given before it's all collected and analyzed - so that people can't jump to conclusions that suit their position.
I understand it's hard, but be patient, the CRB is trying to do the right thing.
AB
benspeed
02-13-2006, 08:47 PM
Hold onto your cards and don't lay them out until you know what they read. Otherwise you will have somebody like Mattberg chiming in on this thread. (or maybe he will since you haven't provided inconclusive evidence which might mean there is a conspiracy in the North!)
gpeluso
02-13-2006, 09:02 PM
:D
AB,
You should probably say nothing, becasue when you start talking about the CRB doing some tests and other people turning in other tests.......it sounds like the method used is flawed. AB, don't you think the same process should be used with the same equipment? Don't create doubt. How does the CRB know a car is completely legal if your just taking info from members. Please tell me we are not waiting for a let down. YOUR STATEMENTS ARE CREATING QUESTIONS. Real questions. AB, I started off with a smile again.
Greg
The info will not be leaked out little by little. A full report will summarize. We want to use different cars, with different prep levels and different dyno's as data points. Some the CRB will test, some info will come in from members.
And dj, that ain't pessimism, that is realism. Nothing wrong with not being able to please everyone, just one of a few reasons info won't be given before it's all collected and analyzed - so that people can't jump to conclusions that suit their position.
I understand it's hard, but be patient, the CRB is trying to do the right thing.
AB
[/b]
Greg Amy
02-13-2006, 09:10 PM
Oh, pardon me; did I wander into the Bimmerworld Forums again by mistake...?
Andy Bettencourt
02-13-2006, 09:48 PM
:D
AB,
You should probably say nothing, becasue when you start talking about the CRB doing some tests and other people turning in other tests.......it sounds like the method used is flawed. AB, don't you think the same process should be used with the same equipment? Don't create doubt. How does the CRB know a car is completely legal if your just taking info from members. Please tell me we are not waiting for a let down. YOUR STATEMENTS ARE CREATING QUESTIONS. Real questions. AB, I started off with a smile again.
Greg
[/b]
We will accept all data from all sources. The validity we assign to it depends on the backup that is presented with it.
What kind of outcry would there be should we proclaim that we won't accept input from our members? :bash_1_: :bash_1_:
What is your definition of a 'let-down'? If we allow data from multiple sources, in an effort to make sure we have the full story, how is that bad? We just have to be able to see through the 'spin' while at the same time validating the size eventually going to be mandated.
The only people who are confused are the ones trying to 'read' the story without seeing all the words.
You are right on one thing...it is time I weened myself off this BB. B)
AB
Ron Earp
02-13-2006, 10:12 PM
How about using a single dyno and running the same car with and without restrictor within minutes of one another? I'd love to oversee one of those tests.
Hey, I'll cover the costs if anyone wants to bring their BMW to the Dynojet in Raleigh NC. Haywood's Custom Speed shop, used it a number of times for various street cars as well as IT cars. $100 an hour, no limit to pulls for the hour. I'll pay, you bring the car well-prepped BMW 325, you bring the SIR. Think there are more than a few top running candidates in the area. I'll be there, Jeff Young will be there, and any other local IT'er that wants to check it out. Be an interesting test conducted by a non-involved indivdual(s).
R
lateapex911
02-13-2006, 10:48 PM
OK, guys, I am almost finished shoveling, so.....
First, the CRB is on your side. They are not going to make any decision that could endanger the competiveness of the E36. If it means pushing back the implementation date, then they are open to that. I like your comment DJ, about radicals and rationals. What I saw this weekend was the CRB being very rational, and bending over backwards to get this resolved properly. I know that we got off on the wrong foot with the timing and the lack of data.....the CRB and the ITAC agree, and are going to attend to those issues.
Second, this is a tricky bit of business, as has been pointed out. Where do results come from? If I had MY way, I would hire Sunbelt to build me a top notch legal motor, and then go testing, with lots of SIRs, application parts, and on every dyno I could find. I would end up with a ton of data points and a lot of confidence in my final decision.
But this is the real world. So we are relying on an effort that is being put forth by members of the CRB, the ITAC guys, and actual competitors, like yourselves. Obviously, it's a difficult process, and to some degree, judgement and trust are part of the formula.
So, we are pressing forward with an evolving plan to aquire as many data points as possible.
This weekend was a major step, and we got to do some good back to back to back testing of various setups, and we owe a debt of gratitude to a competitor and a CRB member who opened his personal shop up for the day so we could make noise and burn gas.
One downside to the testing is that we are using real guys and real cars, and their privacy needs to be respected when requested. Another is that of course, no two dynos are created equal. Another reason we are trying to get many data points.
We have scheduled another test this coming weekend, with a different car, and a different size SIR, then, the weekend after that, we will be back at it with more SIR sizes, plus the ones already tested for repeatability, and at this point it looks like we will have the car we tested this weekend, AND another car.
At that pont, we will have a better picture, and can make more decisions. I have a further plan in mind, but I am not sure of it's liklihood, as it is rather ambitious.
I hear what you guys are saying about repeatabilty, legality concerns, and so on, and I assure you that we will do the best we can. I can promise that the effort will be far and above anything IT has ever seen.
Now, I know you want data and numbers, but at this point I can't release them. I can say that we see the need to do more testing, as the numbers that we have gotten so far from various sources are not showing the repeatability that is desired.
This is a process, and we are at the begining, with much more to come.
The dyno used in this test was a Clayton, a roller based chassis dyno. It uses lighter rollers, and the standard procedure is to bring the car up to speed, then drag it down, gradually increasing the load. It will not be the only type used, as we have scheduled testing on other makes as I mentioned above.
Stay tuned!
The dyno used in this test was a Clayton, a roller based chassis dyno. It uses lighter rollers, and the standard procedure is to bring the car up to speed, then drag it down, gradually increasing the load. It will not be the only type used, as we have scheduled testing on other makes as I mentioned above.
Stay tuned!
[/b]
Jake, From what i know, correct me if I'm wrong, the 2 most common dynos are dynojet and mustang? I heard mustang dyno read low and dynojets read high. If we are to shoot for a target hp reading wouldn't we need to use 1 or the other or both if we have a conversion scale. NASA uses all dyno jet and uses a 14.5 weight/hp ratio. Maybe this is the way to go?.
Having seen the results Jake, I think you should post what ever results you have BUT PLEASE also post your conclusions as well. You just told us you want to do another test we will abide by that. I'd like to see your pictures if you have any.
Thanks
dj
lateapex911
02-13-2006, 11:50 PM
Well, good points on the different dynos, and we are aware of them, and we would love to run the full set of tests on all of them, LOL. Sadly practicality does enter the equation, but the results will be interpolated, and testing on different types of dynos is part of the plan. And DJ, not just one more test, but many more pulls. We did about 4 or 5 hours on Saturday.
Ron, back to back has already been done, and will be done again, numerous times. I like your offer! I encourage any and everyone to take Ron up on it.
Pictures! I forgot! lets see what I have...
The first pic it the opening, then the exit. The third is a view of the assembled unit, the sizing insert is alongside.
hmmmm. picture posting issues..lets try that again.
odd...i have done this before with success...but it isn't working now.
mlytle
02-14-2006, 12:19 AM
Oh, pardon me; did I wander into the Bimmerworld Forums again by mistake...?
[/b]
:lol:
that would be the bimmerforums, and geez, i hope not! :bash_1_:
lateapex911
02-14-2006, 12:24 AM
LOL......yeah, been there, done that, never agian!
they win the :dead_horse: prize!
Ron Earp
02-14-2006, 09:38 AM
Jake, From what i know, correct me if I'm wrong, the 2 most common dynos are dynojet and mustang? I heard mustang dyno read low and dynojets read high
dj
[/b]
This is essentially correct. The Dynojet reads higher than the Mustang dyno might be a more correct way to say it because the Dynojet seems to jive pretty well with published stock hp figures. Could be Mustangs read low while Dynojets are about right.
Anyway, Dynojets are by far the most popular of the two and can be found all over. Never heard of a Clayton dyno. I understand the logistical challenge of doing something like this, but, if you are not going to use an instrument that folks know and understand, then you are opening the entire procedure up to ridicule and nitpicking. In the end you might not have buy in from the people that matter, the BMW drivers. But, you might not have buy in from them anyhow.
Anyone wants to do tests in Raleigh I'll buy.
Ron
Well, good points on the different dynos, and we are aware of them, and we would love to run the full set of tests on all of them, LOL. Sadly practicality does enter the equation, but the results will be interpolated, and testing on different types of dynos is part of the plan. And DJ, not just one more test, but many more pulls. We did about 4 or 5 hours on Saturday.
[/b]
Jake, I didn't mean you should test on all the different dynos, I brought that up to show everyone that there are differences and no one should be blind to this. Example: if I'm 181 rwhp on a mustang dyno I might be 195 rwhp on a dynojet. The SIR is limiting us to 220 CHP if you calculate this is 180.4 rwhp using the 18% crank to rear wheel loss. So the target number of 220 CHP came from where and which dyno, if any? If the rx7's are using, as another example, a mustang dyno and the SIR is based on a dynojet, we would get killed. B)
If you won't give us any info about Sat. tests at least give us your personal conclusions and did the SIR's you had even come close to your expectations?? Damn Jake, give us something to think about. :D
dj
Joe Harlan
02-14-2006, 10:20 AM
This is essentially correct. The Dynojet reads higher than the Mustang dyno might be a more correct way to say it because the Dynojet seems to jive pretty well with published stock hp figures. Could be Mustangs read low while Dynojets are about right.
Anyway, Dynojets are by far the most popular of the two and can be found all over. Never heard of a Clayton dyno. I understand the logistical challenge of doing something like this, but, if you are not going to use an instrument that folks know and understand, then you are opening the entire procedure up to ridicule and nitpicking. In the end you might not have buy in from the people that matter, the BMW drivers. But, you might not have buy in from them anyhow.
Anyone wants to do tests in Raleigh I'll buy.
Ron
[/b]
If my memory is correct the Dynojet is an inertia type dyno (with optional eddy loadcell) The mustang is a single or double roller type dyno with the eddy loadcell standard. The Clayton is normally a double roller loadable type dyno that works much like a water break engine dyno. All of them are good for reading peak numbers and should be pretty close in those numbers. I would not bother going to a dyno shop that cannot load and hold individual rpm ranges for proper tuning of those rpm and load ranges. Clayton is the old grand daddy of dynos and have always been good units. I would have no problem with results from this type of dyno.
gpeluso
02-14-2006, 10:49 AM
:D
Joe,
Glad you think it's a good dyno,but that not what Ron,DJ,and myself are talking about. We are talking about comparing apples to apples. Many HP numbers have been thrown around. AB, talked about an RX7 putting out 182 whp. I'm concerned that the goal itself maybe flawed with 220chp. If that is the goal the BMW would seem heavy. It just seemed like on Friday this information was going to be very open. Time is not on your side. I really seem to like someone like Ron helping out. He seems like a voicce of reason.
Greg
If my memory is correct the Dynojet is an inertia type dyno (with optional eddy loadcell) The mustang is a single or double roller type dyno with the eddy loadcell standard. The Clayton is normally a double roller loadable type dyno that works much like a water break engine dyno. All of them are good for reading peak numbers and should be pretty close in those numbers. I would not bother going to a dyno shop that cannot load and hold individual rpm ranges for proper tuning of those rpm and load ranges. Clayton is the old grand daddy of dynos and have always been good units. I would have no problem with results from this type of dyno.
[/b]
Andy Bettencourt
02-14-2006, 11:00 AM
:D
I'm concerned that the goal itself maybe flawed with 220chp. If that is the goal the BMW would seem heavy. Greg
[/b]
You think so? I think you would be in the minority. Tell us why you think it would be heavy.
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7315 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7315)
The information WILL be open, once we get it all and make sense of it. Time is of the essence, we undertand that.
AB
gpeluso
02-14-2006, 11:04 AM
:happy204:
ab,
minorities can be right,.........I knew you couldn't stay away. Hey, I'm smiling again.
Greg
You think so? I think you would be in the minority.
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7315 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7315)
The information WILL be open, once we get it all and make sense of it. :dead_horse:
AB
[/b]
AntonioGG
02-14-2006, 11:04 AM
Here's an interesting thread to read about dyno differences:
http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ultimat...0786;p=0#000000 (http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000786;p=0#0000 00)
As far as the test results...the suspense is killing me! This is worse than watching "24".
Antonio
--no dog in this hunt, but curious about the results
Joe Harlan
02-14-2006, 11:12 AM
:D
Joe,
Glad you think it's a good dyno,but that not what Ron,DJ,and myself are talking about. We are talking about comparing apples to apples. Many HP numbers have been thrown around. AB, talked about an RX7 putting out 182 whp. I'm concerned that the goal itself maybe flawed with 220chp. If that is the goal the BMW would seem heavy. It just seemed like on Friday this information was going to be very open. Time is not on your side. I really seem to like someone like Ron helping out. He seems like a voicce of reason.
Greg
[/b]
Greg, I am not going to go into what you like or dislike. I think if you look through several of the threads on this subject you will find an offer of 4 hours of my shop time to help with this problem. I have offered to help install one of these should anyone want to take me up on it.
What I am saying is if all dyno's in question have a properload cell you will get reasonably good data to compare to each other. If the dyno used is nothing but a straight pull inertia dyno you will get big marketing numbers and no other valuble data. WHat would you all do if you went to an inertia dyno and got exactly the number the CRB was shooting for but the car was not drivable on the track? I think these guys are going at it the right way by hold their water until all the data is in. What pisses me off is this is exactly the testing you all were screaming for when the rule was handed down. I would suggest Ron is making a great offer, I would also suggest that if somebody takes him up on it that they bring somebody along that understands what they are looking at. Make sure the Dyno facility has the ability to load at different settings and steady state and that they also have a wideband O2 runnning recording the fuel mixture through the whole process.
Ron Earp
02-14-2006, 11:44 AM
I would also suggest that if somebody takes him up on it that they bring somebody along that understands what they are looking at. Make sure the Dyno facility has the ability to load at different settings and steady state and that they also have a wideband O2 runnning recording the fuel mixture through the whole process.
[/b]
Joe, I know what I am looking at and have done lots of dyno runs using various equipment including wide band, EGTs, and limited airflow feeds. We can steady state load, static run, and record all sorts of parameters during a run. Depends on which shop. Neither are mine just ones I use because the folks are very good, flexible, and like to fool with cars. I prefer the Dynojet because that is what everyone is used to, most folks, and I find them very repeatable from day to day and very accurate for seeing differences in changes performed. Anyone is welcome to come, someone just needs to produce the car, bring the stuff to tune their BMW, and we'll see what we get.
Ron
Andy Bettencourt
02-14-2006, 11:46 AM
:happy204:
ab,
minorities can be right
Greg
[/b]
Anyone can be right, but I am having a hard time understanding why you would think the BMW would be an underdog at the same hp level as the RX-7 given all the other factors listed in the thread. It's easy to just stand up and disagree, but at some point you have to tell us why.
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7315 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7315)
gpeluso
02-14-2006, 12:01 PM
:D AB,
I have given an example.........since you said you were not going to post until the info comes.....go read........
Greg
Anyone can be right, but I am having a hard time understanding why you would think the BMW would be an underdog at the same hp level as the RX-7 given all the other factors listed in the thread. It's easy to just stand up and disagree, but at some point you have to tell us why.
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7315 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7315)
[/b]
Andy Bettencourt
02-14-2006, 12:44 PM
:D AB,
I have given an example.........since you said you were not going to post until the info comes.....go read........
Greg
[/b]
Never said I wasn't going to post - just not the info until it is ready...and if Jake wanted to post his FIRST hand info, that would be up to him. Try and read the actual words, not what you want them to say.
Link me to your comments. Can't find them.
AB
MMiskoe
02-14-2006, 01:14 PM
This might be considered a dumb question but I'll risk that.
If there is so much riding on this testing and so much effort being put into it, why screw around w/ a chassi dyno? Although engine dynos are harder to get set up initially, they have much better ability to provide consistant numbers because of the environmental controls they can provide.
Get the SIR worked out on the engine dyno where its easy to make the changes, then do some pulls on different chassi dynos to show driveline losses & differences between dynos.
You can test forever, but if you don't cmpare apples to apples you are wasting your time.
Tell me where am I wrong in this idea.
Matt
gpeluso
02-14-2006, 01:20 PM
:D
AB,
I talked about the end result of HP of the BMW compared to the RX7. Showed the weight differences and brought up the question of what type of dyno used to measure 182whp you claim that an RX7 is capable of. Are you comparing apples to apples. I have a feeling YOU are not. That's right you. You never addressed different readings from dynos,DJ has been asking. Next an CLayton????? Ron makes a great poiunt. Why not use comparable info. The way you are condoning the test info it can interpretted differently. Even, if you hit the goal , how can you give the BMW less power than an RX7 but more weiht?AB, you will not tire me. You are tring to confuse the issue. Just get the info!!!!!!!! You love those little faces, huh. :D :D :D :D :happy204:
Greg
Never said I wasn't going to post - just not the info until it is ready...and if Jake wanted to post his FIRST hand info, that would be up to him. Try and read the actual words, not what you want them to say.
Link me to your comments. Can't find them.
AB
[/b]
Andy Bettencourt
02-14-2006, 01:24 PM
This might be considered a dumb question but I'll risk that.
If there is so much riding on this testing and so much effort being put into it, why screw around w/ a chassi dyno? Although engine dynos are harder to get set up initially, they have much better ability to provide consistant numbers because of the environmental controls they can provide.
Get the SIR worked out on the engine dyno where its easy to make the changes, then do some pulls on different chassi dynos to show driveline losses & differences between dynos.
You can test forever, but if you don't cmpare apples to apples you are wasting your time.
Tell me where am I wrong in this idea.
Matt [/b]
Your not wrong Matt. That would be a perfect solution in a perfect world. It just may not be practical at this point.
AB
Andy Bettencourt
02-14-2006, 01:36 PM
:D
AB,
I talked about the end result of HP of the BMW compared to the RX7. Showed the weight differences and brought up the question of what type of dyno used to measure 182whp you claim that an RX7 is capable of. Are you comparing apples to apples. I have a feeling YOU are not. That's right you. You never addressed different readings from dynos,DJ has been asking. Next an CLayton????? Ron makes a great poiunt. Why not use comparable info. The way you are condoning the test info it can interpretted differently. Even, if you hit the goal , how can you give the BMW less power than an RX7 but more weiht?AB, you will not tire me. You are tring to confuse the issue. Just get the info!!!!!!!! You love those little faces, huh. :D :D :D :D :happy204:
Greg
[/b]
<My babbling response deleted. Can't seem to get through>
The goal is to have the BMW at 220chp. That is in the range of the RX-7 - within any sort of error.
Same crank and wheel hp for the BMW and RX-7...why is the BMW 'heavy'? If they are the same hp, do you agree or disagree that the BMW is still as good as the RX-7?
As far as the testing, we will use comparable info, we are just accepting it all at the moment.
I am not trying to confuse the issue - I am just condoning testing by anyone. Trust me, the CRB isn't so foolish as to exclusively use info from different dynos to make a decision.
Wow. 3150lb minimum would have been sooo much easier.
Ron Earp
02-14-2006, 01:41 PM
Wow. 3150lb minimum would have been sooo much easier.
[/b]
And right in line with IT philosophy as opposed to the SIR and restrictors.
Andy Bettencourt
02-14-2006, 01:51 PM
True, but read the last paragraph on the second page of the ITCS. Many BMW drivers have called that weight 'extreme'. I can only surmise that the CRB was trying to have the best of both worlds.
AB
The goal is to have the BMW at 220chp. That is in the range of the RX-7 - within any sort of error.
Same crank and wheel hp for the BMW and RX-7...why is the BMW 'heavy'? If they are the same hp, do you agree or disagree that the BMW is still as good as the RX-7?
Wow. 3150lb minimum would have been sooo much easier.
[/b]
AB, the RX7 is lighter, easier on tyres, has as good of brakes as my BMW, handles slightly better and my BMW has slightly more torque (where the hell you got 180 ft lbs. of torque I'm look at my dyno sheet?) 180 is a false figure.
Advantage E30 (200# lighter) & RX7.
At 3150# I will not be racing SCCA! Then I would thank them for making my BMW worth zilch point shit (almost what it worth now) after I sent all kinds of $ to upgrade everything in the car.
We need to focus on the problem without destroying an entire make of car, no matter what make it is. I would be as upset if this was the RX7 going through this BS.
All I asked for was an opinion on they thought the test went and we get absolutely nothing. This is a little like masturbation with out the payoff. :D
dj
Greg Amy
02-14-2006, 03:04 PM
This is a little like masturbation with out the payoff. :D [/b]
Then stop stroking and go watch some TV...
Andy Bettencourt
02-14-2006, 03:10 PM
AB, the RX7 is lighter, easier on tyres, has as good of brakes as my BMW, handles slightly better and my BMW has slightly more torque (where the hell you got 180 ft lbs. of torque I'm look at my dyno sheet?) 180 is a false figure.
[/b]
NOT FALSE. Maybe Bruce Shafer would care to comment on my torque claims? Care to tell us your builder, your prep level, and your numbers? (Not Bruce, DJ.) I don't mind people disputing stuff, but bring something to the table.
At 3150# I will not be racing SCCA! Then I would thank them for making my BMW worth zilch point shit (almost what it worth now) after I sent all kinds of $ to upgrade everything in the car.[/b]
"almost what it is worth now"...what are we to make of that statement? You think the E36 is an underdog now? HA!
We need to focus on the problem without destroying an entire make of car, no matter what make it is. I would be as upset if this was the RX7 going through this BS.[/b]
And that is what is happening.
All I asked for was an opinion on they thought the test went and we get absolutely nothing. This is a little like masturbation with out the payoff. :D
dj [/b]
Then don't grab it if you know you won't be able to finish. Wait until all the info is in and you can do whatever you want to yourself...
NOT FALSE. Maybe Bruce Shafer would care to comment? Care to tell us your builder, your prep level, and your numbers? I don't mind people disputing stuff, but bring something to the table.
"almost what it is worth now"...what are we to make of that statement? You think the E36 is an underdog now? HA!
Then don't grab it if you know you won't be able to finish. Wait until all the info is in and you can do whatever you want to yourself...
[/b]
AB & ask Bruce what dyno he used for his figures. Your plate was filled if you remember (ask Darin). Honestly, from what I'm seeing we will be the underdogs. But it all depends on what this SIR will do, or not do. :D
dj
Andy Bettencourt
02-14-2006, 03:46 PM
AB & ask Bruce what dyno he used for his figures. Your plate was filled if you remember (ask Darin). Honestly, from what I'm seeing we will be the underdogs. But it all depends on what this SIR will do, or not do. :D
dj [/b]
I hope he chimes in. I am looking at his sheet.
What are you seeing? When the CRB gets the BMW to 220chp or 180whp (dynojet), I fail to see them as an...
http://www.toontracker.com/totaltv/udog-1.jpg
The torque numbers are so huge, the powercurve so flat, the gearing so good, the brakes are awesome, and the chassis more than acceptable...it will still be a GREAT car for ITS.
I hope he chimes in. I am looking at his sheet.
What are you seeing? When the CRB gets the BMW to 220chp or 180whp (dynojet), I fail to see them as an...
http://www.toontracker.com/totaltv/udog-1.jpg
The torque numbers are so huge, the powercurve so flat, the gearing so good, the brakes are awesome, and the chassis more than acceptable...it will still be a GREAT car for ITS.
[/b]
You should be a BMW salesman! :happy204: Hell AB you love the BMW so much why aren't you racing them?!! From what you just wrote, why the hell should anyone race a RX7? :rolleyes: With the 200# gift to the E30 and this gift of less hp & torque for us. You are more confident that me. :unsure: Well I'm not worried my membership & comp license is up in June, we should know something by then.....maybe.;~)
dj
The stop stroking and go watch some TV...
[/b]
Greg,
I wouldn't touch this with a 10 inch... errrrr...........I mean a 10 ft. pole :018:
gpeluso
02-14-2006, 05:21 PM
:D
AB,
Don't ge me this perfect world shit. The SCCA should have the means and the know how to perform the test. We are not talking about thousands of dollars, and if we were the SCCA could/should do it. The Club members are paying for the ProRacing, how about some of that money come back to the club level. Some guys are spending $50,000 on cars to race. Even years ago SpeedSource wanted $36,000 for an ITS RX7. If you make rules don't act like its impossible to run tests to prove them. AB, is the SCCA a nickle and dime operation. The SCCA has the ability to reach out to many resources. The engine dyno question is a great one. Hell, put the other competitive car brands on it to show data. You form your opinions from what ever data you have, but in a PERFECT world we would have the apple to apple comparision . Don't act like this is impossible. Are you afraid that you are wrong?
Greg
Your not wrong Matt. That would be a perfect solution in a perfect world. It just may not be practical at this point.
AB
[/b]
:happy204:AB,
If they have the same HP shouldn't they weight the same ?
Same crank and wheel hp for the BMW and RX-7...why is the BMW 'heavy'? If they are the same hp, do you agree or disagree that the BMW is still as good as the RX-7?
[/b]
Joe Harlan
02-14-2006, 07:28 PM
Greg,
I wouldn't touch this with a 10 inch... errrrr...........I mean a 10 ft. pole :018:
[/b]
Now that's funny cause if you had a 10 inch errr 10 ft pole you wouldn't feel the need to own a beamer...... :happy204:
zracre
02-14-2006, 09:08 PM
AB,
Don't ge me this perfect world shit. The SCCA should have the means and the know how to perform the test. We are not talking about thousands of dollars, and if we were the SCCA could/should do it. The Club members are paying for the ProRacing, how about some of that money come back to the club level. Some guys are spending $50,000 on cars to race. Even years ago SpeedSource wanted $36,000 for an ITS RX7. If you make rules don't act like its impossible to run tests to prove them. AB, is the SCCA a nickle and dime operation. The SCCA has the ability to reach out to many resources. The engine dyno question is a great one. Hell, put the other competitive car brands on it to show data. You form your opinions from what ever data you have, but in a PERFECT world we would have the apple to apple comparision . Don't act like this is impossible. Are you afraid that you are wrong?
Greg
:happy204:AB,
If they have the same HP shouldn't they weight the same ?
[/b]
good point...we pay for it...why skimp on dyno time...im sure thee are plenty of members willing to offer up their ride for dyno tuning time...IT is a bigger force than most national classes...
steve s
02-14-2006, 09:25 PM
now why couldn't our club have done this testing b4 doing the comp. adjustment ???
they could have gotten the top 5 manufacturer cars from the ARRC and done some testing with them.
that is the top 5 bmw
top 5 rx7
top 5 nissans
etc . i am sure some of them would glad for the dyno time.since the top guys were taken apart to some degree and all found to be legal they would be the best choice for this test ???
now if any camp decides not to subject their car to this testing then don't complain about the results being flawed.
Knestis
02-14-2006, 09:33 PM
Wow. 3150lb minimum would have been sooo much easier. ... And right in line with IT philosophy as opposed to the SIR and restrictors.[/b]
A-freakin'-men.
Kirk (who still thinks this is going to go down as a decision that we regret mightily)
Ron Earp
02-14-2006, 09:49 PM
Kirk (who still thinks this is going to go down as a decision that we regret mightily)
[/b]
I'm with you on that one.
Matt Rowe
02-14-2006, 10:35 PM
A-freakin'-men.
Kirk (who still thinks this is going to go down as a decision that we regret mightily)
[/b]
No good deed goes unpunished. The biggest screw-ups start with the best of intentions?
The FIRST thing I learned as a Steward was that anytime you think of bending the rules or treating one group differently to make them happy you're going to regret it. As nice an idea as the SIR might be, I'd hate to be the ITAC, CRB or BMW owner right now and have to deal with all of this crap. The process derived weight sounds more and more like the better choice. Then it would have been up to the BMW owners to prove their motors weren't that strong as opposed to the ITAC and CRB proving the SIR works as intended.
Meanwhile, we still have issues with rules interpretation, ECU's, and bringing in new faster cars. But I wonder how much of that is going to get done while all of this effort is being put into a single car. While the effort is great, couldn't it be better spent elsewhere?
Fastfred92
02-14-2006, 11:01 PM
Where did the 182 whp # for the RX7 come from??? what level of prep are we talking here? Huffmasters car ??? I may be wrong but I suspect a decent prep but not motec type RX7.....
No good deed goes unpunished. The biggest screw-ups start with the best of intentions?
The FIRST thing I learned as a Steward was that anytime you think of bending the rules or treating one group differently to make them happy you're going to regret it. As nice an idea as the SIR might be, I'd hate to be the ITAC, CRB or BMW owner right now and have to deal with all of this crap. The process derived weight sounds more and more like the better choice. Then it would have been up to the BMW owners to prove their motors weren't that strong as opposed to the ITAC and CRB proving the SIR works as intended.
[/b]
Matt, As was stated in a previous post all testing should have been completed before the comp adjustment was implemented. I am a BMW owner and last year was my 1st year back in 5 years. Never did I think that this class or this car was so much of a concern or I would have gone to another class! I hate like hell to even think I would have to drive around with another 300# and as a matter of fact I WON'T! I can run NASA at 14.5 rwhp/Weight without being fat. To me the SIR could be the answer but it's flawed right now and with the lack of info from the testing I'm having a hard time knowing who I can trust
Matt, thanks to you and all the other workers who have helped us over the years, we couldn't do it without people like you.
dj
MMiskoe
02-14-2006, 11:24 PM
Back to the testing process.
Testing this motor w/ different levels of prep and different types/sizes of restrictor seems like a no brainer.
So why is there any time wasted on a chassi dyno or even moreso, why any time wasted arguing about the numbers measured there. Results are only as good as the test done.
Having just jumped into reading this, I can't believe this approach hasn't been explored.
4 motors w/ different levels of build, all get run w/ the flat plate & the SIR. From what I read on the SIR it will top out the performance of the motor regardless of what else is done to it internally (curious to see this). Start at the bottom see what you get, then move up & see how it affects performance.
Motor 1 - stock, minimal if any changes - run it w/ the SIR and the flat plate
Motor 2 - moderate IT change - run it w/ the SIR and the flat plate, compare differences
Motor 3 - fullblown IT motor
Motor 4 - bump compression & better cams (to show the envelope above what can be done legally)
Then while you're at it, better get a decent, or full blown 13B motor on the stand. Probably ought to get a Datsun L28 (L28 or L24 in the 240z?) motor there too.
The idea that SCCA hasn't already done this w/ other cars somewhere between WC and TransAm would suprise me. Should be some previously done tests that can be repeated on the BWM motor.
Meanwhile there are three choices:
Send the E36 to ITE
Raise the Weight
Let them drive off into the winner circle and remember we're racing for bowling trophies.
gpeluso
02-15-2006, 12:24 AM
:happy204: Thank You for saying this about testing. AB must think we just don't understand how things get done. Even if the SIR can get it done, it is an insult to think rule makes can't spend money to test a stinking theory,but tell a part of membership as a whole to spend $50,000 on apiece of equipment(That $$ is arrived at by 100 BMW drivers spending about $500 on a SIR and related items)
Back to the testing process.
Testing this motor w/ different levels of prep and different types/sizes of restrictor seems like a no brainer.
So why is there any time wasted on a chassi dyno or even moreso, why any time wasted arguing about the numbers measured there. Results are only as good as the test done.
Having just jumped into reading this, I can't believe this approach hasn't been explored.
4 motors w/ different levels of build, all get run w/ the flat plate & the SIR. From what I read on the SIR it will top out the performance of the motor regardless of what else is done to it internally (curious to see this). Start at the bottom see what you get, then move up & see how it affects performance.
Motor 1 - stock, minimal if any changes - run it w/ the SIR and the flat plate
Motor 2 - moderate IT change - run it w/ the SIR and the flat plate, compare differences
Motor 3 - fullblown IT motor
Motor 4 - bump compression & better cams (to show the envelope above what can be done legally)
Then while you're at it, better get a decent, or full blown 13B motor on the stand. Probably ought to get a Datsun L28 (L28 or L24 in the 240z?) motor there too.
The idea that SCCA hasn't already done this w/ other cars somewhere between WC and TransAm would suprise me. Should be some previously done tests that can be repeated on the BWM motor.
Meanwhile there are three choices:
Send the E36 to ITE
Raise the Weight
Let them drive off into the winner circle and remember we're racing for bowling trophies.
[/b]
zracre
02-15-2006, 12:43 AM
Let them drive off into the winner circle and remember we're racing for bowling trophies.
[/b]
:happy204:
its66
02-15-2006, 12:46 AM
AB, the RX7 is lighter, easier on tyres, has as good of brakes as my BMW, handles slightly better and my BMW has slightly more torque (where the hell you got 180 ft lbs. of torque I'm look at my dyno sheet?) 180 is a false figure.
<deleted>. :D
dj
[/b]
The 180 HP number came from fellow e36 drivers. It is posted publicly right here.
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...indpost&p=60662 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=6090&view=findpost&p=60662)
scroll down to post 292.
50 lb-ft is 38+% more than 130-which is the best of the best RX7 torque. Most are in the 125 range. I don't think "slightly more" is the correct term.
Bill Miller
02-15-2006, 08:10 AM
A-freakin'-men.
Kirk (who still thinks this is going to go down as a decision that we regret mightily)
[/b]
Put another vote in that column! I simply can't believe that all this time, money, and effort is being spent on this.
They are not going to make any decision that could endanger the competiveness of the E36. [/b]
That statement gave me the single biggest icky feeling of anything I read here. Currently, the E36 does not fit the process that has been applied to the rest of IT. The ITCS clearly states that there's no guarantee of competitiveness. Now we hear statements about how the CRB won't do anything that might endanger the competitiveness of a car that doesn't fit the process. :mad1:
The E36 should have gotten the 300# of lead, and that should have been the end of the story. To all those folks that say that they wouldn't race w/ the SCCA w/ their E36 @ 3150#, my comment is, don't let the door hit you on the way out. You think that you should get special treatment that others don't get. While I agree that it sucks to have spent money on things that you have to take off the car, guess what, that's part of racing. People have had things legislated away in the past, and more than likely, it will happen again in the future. Racing costs money, you don't want to spend it, OSB.
Jake, Andy, Darin, and any other members of the ITAC, this SIR thing is a HUGE mistake, on a lot of different levels. Go back to the CRB and implore them to go w/ the lead. This special treatment for the E36 cars is really BS. Someone please give me an example of another IT car that has had it's specs set based on dyno testing? Not only is this a can of worms, but it's one that's burried in the ground, that you're only starting to see the top of. Nobody has any idea of how big it is.
Not trying to :dead_horse: but I don't see how anyone can look someone in the eye, and honestly tell them that the Supra has to run @ 3380#, because that's where the process puts it, but that an E36 gets to run @ 2850#, w/ an SIR, and say that both cars got treated the same.
This whole thing has become such a case of the tail wagging the dog, it's not funny. And I could really care less what some people would or wouldn't touch w/ their 1" pole.
Ron Earp
02-15-2006, 08:30 AM
Not trying to :dead_horse: but I don't see how anyone can look someone in the eye, and honestly tell them that the Supra has to run @ 3380#, because that's where the process puts it, but that an E36 gets to run @ 2850#, w/ an SIR, and say that both cars got treated the same.
[/b]
Precisely correct Bill. And your comments with the lead are spot on. Why does this car deserve special treatment? And really, "unracable" with 300lbs of extra lead, it'll wear everything out? I bet I could add 300lbs to my SM and it'd "race" okay. It wouldn't win, but it'd race. But, as the GCR says, no guarentee of competitiveness.
The 180 HP number came from fellow e36 drivers. It is posted publicly right here.
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...indpost&p=60662 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=6090&view=findpost&p=60662)
scroll down to post 292.
50 lb-ft is 38+% more than 130-which is the best of the best RX7 torque. Most are in the 125 range. I don't think "slightly more" is the correct term.
[/b]
Thank you for this info. 1st I've seen this. Can you confirm that this was on a Dynojet please?
Weight issue, do you think its ok to stick 300# in a small area like the foot well of a car?
I believe the SCCA is going through this process because they want to do the RIGHT thing and no just the EASIEST!
dj
its66
02-15-2006, 09:45 AM
I don't know what type of dyno was used. Perhaps Darin has that info somewhere. Or, if Bruce happens back in here, he might be able to share that info.
Regarding the 300#, do you mean from a safety standpoint? If so, I'm quite certain that I could mount 300# of weight in a manner that would be safe.
zracre
02-15-2006, 10:04 AM
IMHO, of course, I think we should write SCCA a letter requesting the weight at 3150# and be done with it and stop wasting energy arguing about it. We are all membersand we ALL own this club. It does not matter if you run an ITC car or a BMW...it affects all of us. The SIR was put there with good intentions but implemented too quickly with not enough research on the application. Maybe a year or 5 down the road it will be standard operating procedure, but dont make IT the proving grounds (racers with the smallest budgets/entry level racing). I applaud the SCCA for trying to equalize the fields, and even though I got weight added (after the initial swelling went down :bash_1_: ) I thinks they did a good job of trying to balance the IT fields...As I said before, a 325is does fine on track with a passenger...it will do fine with 300# of lead added in creative additional bracing of cage and a couple of lead plates. Again, JMHO... :birra:
Fastfred92
02-15-2006, 10:38 AM
But, as the GCR says, no guarentee of competitiveness.
[/b]
Ron with all due respect that is BS, while I agree that the GCR makes no promise, it should not be used to make a otherwise competitive car useless just to favor another car ( RX7 )... what is next??? we neuter the next inline ( RX7, 240 etc. ) until your TR8 or my VR6 become competitive ????????
Bill Miller
02-15-2006, 10:54 AM
Ron with all due respect that is BS, while I agree that the GCR makes no promise, it should not be used to make a otherwise competitive car useless just to favor another car ( RX7 )... what is next??? we neuter the next inline ( RX7, 240 etc. ) until your TR8 or my VR6 become competitive ????????
[/b]
Fred,
Until you can document that anyone involved w/ this process is expressly trying to make the E36 "useless" [SIC] so as to favor the RX7, kindly put a sock in it. Your comments are an insult to a group of people that have tried very hard (and done a hell of a job, I might add) to make IT a better place for EVERYBODY. I could just as easily claim that the E36 got an SIR instead of 300# of lead, because people are trying to protect it. It's gotten special treatment that no other car in IT has gotten.
Andy Bettencourt
02-15-2006, 10:54 AM
Ron with all due respect that is BS, while I agree that the GCR makes no promise, it should not be used to make a otherwise competitive car useless just to favor another car ( RX7 )... what is next??? we neuter the next inline ( RX7, 240 etc. ) until your TR8 or my VR6 become competitive ???????? [/b]
FF,
With all due respect to you, you have COMPLETELY missed the point of the restructure. It isn't about bringing fast cars to the middle or slow cars to the front - or whatever anyone wants to call it.
We have a process to class new cars and cars moving up or down. When we took that process and applied it to cars across all the classes, it was apperant that there were some cars that were very heavy and very light. So in order to move forward in a unified fashion, we ran everyone through. Not so coincidentally, the cars that stuck out on the top end were 'the cars to have'. And the cars that stuck out on the bottom (too heavy) were total dogs.
When the process is applied universally across the board, each class has never looked better. The system will never be perfect - but it is repeatable and defendable - something that is light years away from where we were even 3 years ago.
Someone else
applaud(ed) the SCCA for trying to equalize the fields[/b]...this is NOT the case. It was a side benefit - a validation if you will - of the process being applied to everyone. On track results were not used - and can't be. It's about the process.
I respect the opinions against the SIR in terms of philosophy and timing.
AB
robits325is
02-15-2006, 11:33 AM
On track results were not used - and can't be. It's about the process.
AB
[/b]
Please explain how the 'process' doesn't/can't/won't use actual race results to justify adjustments when you are trying to use dyno results to validate an overdog?
Using dyno results to make a specific car model fit a 'process' does not seem logical. A dyno should be used for tuning - not for competitive adjustments - too much inconsistency.
Some cars make better race cars than others. All IT cars are not prepped to the same level and only a small percentage are 100% builds.
The SIR rule was implemented WAY too fast without testing or validation other than in theory.
Andy Bettencourt
02-15-2006, 11:45 AM
Please explain how the 'process' doesn't/can't/won't use actual race results to justify adjustments when you are trying to use dyno results to validate an overdog?
Using dyno results to make a specific car model fit a 'process' does not seem logical. A dyno should be used for tuning - not for competitive adjustments - too much inconsistency.
Some cars make better race cars than others. All IT cars are not prepped to the same level and only a small percentage are 100% builds.
The SIR rule was implemented WAY too fast without testing or validation other than in theory. [/b]
I'll answer your question with a question:
How are you supposed to classifiy a car that has never turned a wheel on the track? How do you think your E46 323's got to 3000lbs having never been built for IT?
The 'process' is NOT about adjustments. It's about SETTING a weight. This was a one-time change where we "set" the weight of every car in IT using the process that has been in place for 2 years now. Read my post above again.
Some cars DO make better race cars than others, and the cream may still rise to the top - and SO BE IT. This process has NOTHING to do with prep level, on-track performance or anything like that. It has to do with the assumption that people will prepare to the limit of the rules. I have no sympathy for a guy with a stock motor and header who gets beat by another guy who has his car maxed out. If you don't have the best equipment, how do you expect to win - IN ANYTHING? You may, but that is based on talent, not equipment...and when the talent catches up to you, you're done.
AB
its66
02-15-2006, 11:51 AM
<delete this>
Ron with all due respect that is BS, while I agree that the GCR makes no promise, it should not be used to make a otherwise competitive car useless just to favor another car ( RX7 )... what is next??? we neuter the next inline ( RX7, 240 etc. ) until your TR8 or my VR6 become competitive ????????
[/b]
Fred,
Over the years I've seen SCCA do exactly that (neuter car lines) in National racing! B)
So why not destroy the BMW in ITS with excessive weight or untested technology?
No one has answered my question, as usual. What dyno was used in Bruce Shafers test?
dj
Bill Miller
02-15-2006, 12:10 PM
On track results were not used - and can't be. It's about the process.
AB
[/b]
I'm sorry Andy, if that's the case, you guys threw the PCA rule right out the window.
Taken from 17.1.4.C of the '06 GCR
On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing
performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may
reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or
in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required.[/b]
I don't know how you read that, but the way I read it, is that the ONLY way you can implement a restrictor, is after a review of results. There's nothing at all in the preceeding paragraph (which deals w/ the initial classification process) that speaks to using an inlet restrictor. Here's the first part of that paragraph.
During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess
vehicle performance factors such as—but not limited to—manufacturer’s
published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower,
and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and
aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable
weight shall be established.[/b]
All it says is that a minimum weight shall be established. Says nothing about a restrictor. So, either all the cars were treated like they were new classifications, and run through the process w/o any consideration given to results, or it was a post-classification adjustment, at which point you must consider results, if you're going to implement a restrictor.
I'm not trying to pick a fight (or pick the corn out of the shit), but that's what the rule says.
its66
02-15-2006, 12:16 PM
Fred,
Over the years I've seen SCCA do exactly that (neuter car lines) in National racing! B)
So why not destroy the BMW in ITS with excessive weight or untested technology?
No one has answered my question, as usual. What dyno was used in Bruce Shafers test?
dj
[/b]
such negativity???. The west coast is three hours behind. It's barely been three hours. Darin probably hasn't even seen this yet. Bruce rarely checks out IT.COM anymore.
specialtyautomo
02-15-2006, 12:17 PM
I have read the posts and I say give the e36 300lbs and remote reservoir shocks bahahahahahahaaa. :035:
Andy Bettencourt
02-15-2006, 12:30 PM
I'm sorry Andy, if that's the case, you guys threw the PCA rule right out the window.
Taken from 17.1.4.C of the '06 GCR
I don't know how you read that, but the way I read it, is that the ONLY way you can implement a restrictor, is after a review of results. There's nothing at all in the preceeding paragraph (which deals w/ the initial classification process) that speaks to using an inlet restrictor. Here's the first part of that paragraph.
All it says is that a minimum weight shall be established. Says nothing about a restrictor. So, either all the cars were treated like they were new classifications, and run through the process w/o any consideration given to results, or it was a post-classification adjustment, at which point you must consider results, if you're going to implement a restrictor.
I'm not trying to pick a fight (or pick the corn out of the shit), but that's what the rule says.
[/b]
Bill,
I am talking about the restructuring, not the SIR. I have agreed that I understand the issues with the philosophy and timing. The CRB decided that the BMW was an extreme situation. Officially, it was not part of our proposal, it was a seperate line item. We have already seen that one guy is 'gone' at 3150 and we have received a letter from a soon to be "ex-SCCA" member because of the SIR...
In this case, nobody will be happy because the pastures have been so green for so long.
AB
such negativity???. The west coast is three hours behind. It's barely been three hours. Darin probably hasn't even seen this yet. Bruce rarely checks out IT.COM anymore.
[/b]
Jim, the truth hurts sometimes........SinLoi
If you were in my shoes, what could you be positive about right now? Please give me something to be positive about. I'm open minded.
I've been in and out of the SCCA since the early 90's and in other forms of racing since mid 70's but only noticed this stuff for a year so I'm not use to this, other than seeing it in National T1 & T2.
dj
Andy Bettencourt
02-15-2006, 12:36 PM
So why not destroy the BMW in ITS with excessive weight ...
dj
[/b]
Do you have any supporting info/data/facts/comparisons to support that 3100-3150 would be 'excessive' or is it pure speculation as the car has been living inside the 2850lb nirvana for years now? Something that the detractors of the process weight have yet to belly-up with.
AB
Joe Harlan
02-15-2006, 12:39 PM
I'm sorry Andy, if that's the case, you guys threw the PCA rule right out the window.
Taken from 17.1.4.C of the '06 GCR
I don't know how you read that, but the way I read it, is that the ONLY way you can implement a restrictor, is after a review of results. There's nothing at all in the preceeding paragraph (which deals w/ the initial classification process) that speaks to using an inlet restrictor. Here's the first part of that paragraph.
All it says is that a minimum weight shall be established. Says nothing about a restrictor. So, either all the cars were treated like they were new classifications, and run through the process w/o any consideration given to results, or it was a post-classification adjustment, at which point you must consider results, if you're going to implement a restrictor.
I'm not trying to pick a fight (or pick the corn out of the s**t), but that's what the rule says.
[/b]
Bill one thing I have seen as of late is that if the CRB feels they need to change a rule to support a change then they do it..( I am OK with this) If the rules need to be changed to allow restrictors to be part of the classification then i hope they just get it done. And even though I am just as bad and tryign to be better lets save the bad words for the prod site....lol
Do you have any supporting info/data/facts/comparisons to support that 3100-3150 would be 'excessive' or is it pure speculation as the car has been living inside the 2850lb nirvana for years now?
AB
[/b]
AB,
I have no supporting evidence to support my statement. But do you any any that it may be the right amount? I believe in a common sense approach to things. Just like I warned you about SIRS to be applied in THEORY. To quote Marshall Lytle, "we don't race in theory". [i][u]I'm sure you are not getting the results that you hoped for that is why the hush hush and further testing is needed. Getting back to the weight, even the SCCA PRO understands that if you penalize a car you do it in smaller increments. To hit us all at once then make us put all this weight in 3 or 4 sq. ft. to me is not good common sense. If you want to hit us 1st with a 100# then see if what does, then add weight as required, to me this is a common sense approach. I already told you that I will go along with the SIR also, I beleive that if the SCCA will implement this tested (as well as can be expected) I should & will give them the benefit of the doubt. I truely don't want to stop SCCA racing, i know many very good people who race with me in other makes and other classes. I am trying to be as reasonable as I can. We (BMW owners) just want to be dealt with in good faith. Would you wanted to be treated any differently?
dj
its66
02-15-2006, 01:03 PM
Jim, the truth hurts sometimes........SinLoi
If you were in my shoes, what could you be positive about right now? Please give me something to be positive about. I'm open minded.
I've been in and out of the SCCA since the early 90's and in other forms of racing since mid 70's but only noticed this stuff for a year so I'm not use to this, other than seeing it in National T1 & T2.
dj
[/b]
DJ,
I wouldn't expect you, or any other competitor to be happy about any adjustment that will slow down their race car. I also wouldn't expect you to be happy about having basically one month or so to do it in-as was the initial change. I could understand the negativity better a month ago than I can now.
I would also think that any competitor would be rationale enough to see that the CRB has basically said "Whoa we better slow down and dig into this a little deeper before we make this guys do this." That is a good thing. I would hope that while a competitor may not be on the good end of an adjustment, he can see the merit behind it.
The ITA guys that got weight added aren't screaming. I think some of the ones that got weight added should be pretty upset.
I know that most of the BMW competitors don't see this, but it is pretty dicouraging for a 10/10ths anything to get his a$$ handed to him by a 75% effort BMW. Or to see a driver who spanks EVERYONE in one class jump ito a spec miata and not even be a contender. I may be speaking out of turn, but what I THINK everyone else wants is just to make it so that a well driven 10/10ths BMW vs a well driven 10/10th's RX7, or 240 Z is a good race. If a 10/10th BMW can't run near the point end of a tough field when they get done, I'll be back on here fussing that they went to far. I have already questioned the size of the SIR to AB and Joe Harlan.
Give it a chance :D
One the negativity, I was mainly refering to the comment about not getting your question answered. I'll ask Bruce to reply for you.
Joe Harlan
02-15-2006, 01:43 PM
AB,
I have no supporting evidence to support my statement. But do you any any that it may be the right amount? I believe in a common sense approach to things. Just like I warned you about SIRS to be applied in THEORY. To quote Marshall Lytle, "we don race in theory". [i][u]I'm sure you are not getting the results that you hoped for that is why the hush hush and further testing is needed. Getting back to the weight, even the SCCA PRO understands that if you penalize a car you do it in smaller increments. To hit us all at once then make us put all this weight in 3 or 4 sq. ft. to me is not good common sense. If you want to hit us 1st with a 100# then see if what does, then add weight as required, to me this is a common sense approach. I already told you that I will go along with the SIR also, I beleive that if the SCCA will implement this tested (as well as can be expected) I should & will give them the benefit of the doubt. I truely don't want to stop SCCA racing, i know many very good people who race with me in other makes and other classes. I am trying to be as reasonable as I can. We (BMW owners) just want to be dealt with in good faith. Would you wanted to be treated any differently?
dj
[/b]
Haha,,,,Just like the good faith you all have showed by coming running to the CRB saying "we are driving overdogs, we need adjusted to fit the class, We shouldn't be driving all the other competitive models away"
Yeah we all want to be treated fairly and in good faith and I think that's what this group has done. They have gotten the CRB to quit treating the best classes in SCCA like a redheaded bastard child wearing the scarlet letter that the CRB and BOD has ignored for years.
Fastfred92
02-15-2006, 01:46 PM
I may be speaking out of turn, but what I THINK everyone else wants is just to make it so that a well driven 10/10ths BMW vs a well driven 10/10th's RX7, or 240 Z is a good race.
[/b]
Sounds alot like this years ARRC
Ron Earp
02-15-2006, 01:53 PM
. To hit us all at once then make us put all this weight in 3 or 4 sq. ft. to me is not good common sense. If you want to hit us 1st with a 100# then see if what does, then add weight as required, to me this is a common sense approach. Idj
[/b]
Don’t make it so hard. Tungsten (W) is very dense to the tune of 19250 kg/m^3. Or, 1198 lbs/ft^3.
All you’d need for 300 lbs is a block 6” x 6” x 11”, or variations of that theme. Go to www.onlinemetals.com and they will size one up for you. Ask them to drill ½” holes through it for you to mount it and you are done.
I’d probably weld a ¼” steel plate into the pan to mount it through to give it additional strength (and it’ll reduce the size of the block since that is weight too!) and you’ll be good to go. It isn't going anywhere.
Andy Bettencourt
02-15-2006, 01:57 PM
AB,
I have no supporting evidence to support my statement. But do you any any that it may be the right amount?[/b]
How did I know this was going to be your response? We don't know what teh EXACT weight should be. But we DO know what the weight should be if you run it through the SAME process the other cars have been through. Apples to apples. Fair is fair. That weight may seem extreme to you, but 180ft/lbs of torque and 200+ whp seems extreme to others in the class.
I'm sure you are not getting the results that you hoped for that is why the hush hush and further testing is needed. [/b]
I have stated that we have CONFLICTING data points. One one 'in the zone' and one not. We can't figure out why so we are testing further instead of just saying it's ok.
Getting back to the weight, even the SCCA PRO understands that if you penalize a car you do it in smaller increments. To hit us all at once then make us put all this weight in 3 or 4 sq. ft. to me is not good common sense. If you want to hit us 1st with a 100# then see if what does, then add weight as required, to me this is a common sense approach. [/b]
Why does everyone like to site SCCA Pro REWARDS weight? These are dynamic competition adjustments that have to do ONLY with on-track performance. They couldn't be further from what we are doing. They have NOTHING to do with how cars are initailly classified. If the CRB was to classifiy the E36 325 today, it would arive in the GCR at 3100-3150. Period.
It's not about inching up to the 'correct' weight. It's about setting it and forgetting it. No comp adjustments, no political BS, just the same process everyone else is held to.
I already told you that I will go along with the SIR also, I beleive that if the SCCA will implement this tested (as well as can be expected) I should & will give them the benefit of the doubt. I truely don't want to stop SCCA racing, i know many very good people who race with me in other makes and other classes. I am trying to be as reasonable as I can. We (BMW owners) just want to be dealt with in good faith. Would you wanted to be treated any differently?
dj[/b]
I appreciate your position and believe that you are genuine in your statements and THANK YOU for your patience. Let's just try and support our opinions with reasoning and facts.
Sounds alot like this years ARRC
[/b]
Fred,
I don't what races Jim was at or watched last year but they obviously didn't see the same races or were in the same races as me. :D
I'll give the SIR a chance, I won't give into 300 lbs. dumped on me at one time.
dj
Greg Amy
02-15-2006, 02:12 PM
Sounds alot like this years ARRC
[/b]
:dead_horse:
How did I know this was going to be your response? We don't know what teh EXACT weight should be. But we DO know what the weight should be if you run it through the SAME process the other cars have been through. Apples to apples. Fair is fair. That weight may seem extreme to you, but 180ft/lbs of torque and 200+ whp seems extreme to others in the class.
I have stated that we have CONFLICTING data points. One one 'in the zone' and one not. We can't figure out why so we are testing further instead of just saying it's ok.
Why does everyone like to site SCCA Pro REWARDS weight? These are dynamic competition adjustments that have to do ONLY with on-track performance. They couldn't be further from what we are doing. They have NOTHING to do with how cars are initailly classified. If the CRB was to classifiy the E36 325 today, it would arive in the GCR at 3100-3150. Period.
It's not about inching up to the 'correct' weight. It's about setting it and forgetting it. No comp adjustments, no political BS, just the same process everyone else is held to.
I appreciate your position and believe that you are genuine in your statements and THANK YOU for your patience. Let's just try and support our opinions with reasoning and facts.
[/b]
How did I know this was going to be your response? We don't know what teh EXACT weight should be. But we DO know what the weight should be if you run it through the SAME process the other cars have been through. Apples to apples. Fair is fair. That weight may seem extreme to you, but 180ft/lbs of torque and 200+ whp seems extreme to others in the class.
Why wasn't this weight given to us at the start? If the weight was in error why hasn't some made adjustments before now instead of dumping all this weight at one time? You can't say you know how these cars will handle in sprint races or enduros at 3100-3150# can you? Or can you? in theory? I assume those torque numbers are on a dynojet, because my numbers are from a mustang and are lower. So make sure all your numbers reflect the same kind of dyno so you can compare apples to apples. AB, are all your numbers from all the ITS cars from Dynojets?[i][u] At least NASA understands this and will only accept dynojet numbers.
What ever adjustments are made, I hate to tell you, ARE ALL track performance adjustments. I again do believe that SIR's given proper testing a place in racing. They will hurt the people that have really spent a lot of money to develop thier Motecs and Engines.
dj
gpeluso
02-15-2006, 03:33 PM
:D
Looks like AB is spinning again. Rob has made a great point. AB makes statements about results shouldn't be used. Isn't that what COMP. ADJ. are? Why did they add a restrictor last year? AB, READ THE THEAD HEADING.....SIR TEST RESULT. Why do you get to hold the info....are you better than everyone else. Don't get pissed, but that is how you come off. I think by telling us you know something,but won't reveal it is wrong. When you treat us like children.....we may act like children.......and believe me, you aint my daddy.
Greg
Please explain how the 'process' doesn't/can't/won't use actual race results to justify adjustments when you are trying to use dyno results to validate an overdog?
Using dyno results to make a specific car model fit a 'process' does not seem logical. A dyno should be used for tuning - not for competitive adjustments - too much inconsistency.
Some cars make better race cars than others. All IT cars are not prepped to the same level and only a small percentage are 100% builds.
The SIR rule was implemented WAY too fast without testing or validation other than in theory.
[/b]
Andy Bettencourt
02-15-2006, 03:40 PM
Great post Greg! :015:
I am responding to individual issues as they come up. In the last 7 minutes, I have received 3 PM's telling me to stop replying because you guys just don't get it. You define the reason for their messages.
As far as me being 'better' than you? Nice. I am part of the process. Is it not prudent to collect all the facts before making a decision? Yes. Would you like the info piece by piece so you can prejudice your opinion? No.
Have fun. You will know the final decision when I do.
AB
Greg Amy
02-15-2006, 03:52 PM
Looks like AB is spinning again.[/b]
Oh, no!...I DID wander back into the BimmerForums...! C'mon, fess up: you're "maranelloman", aren't you? Seriously?
On edit:I don't need no steenkin' PM: Andy, just stop please? You're getting nowhere, these guys will never be satisfied. You might as well teach the ole proverbial pig to sing...
Please, I beg you: stop trying to get anywhere with these guys. Please. Pretty please. With sugar on top.
Bill Miller
02-15-2006, 03:58 PM
Why wasn't this weight given to us at the start? If the weight was in error why hasn't some made adjustments before now instead of dumping all this weight at one time?[/b]
dj, have you been living under a rock for the last 3-4 years? What part of "there was no 'process' or 'formula' for spec'ing cars before this iteration of the ITAC developed one" did you miss? And I guess you missed the part where the CRB (CB at the time) changed the weight of the car from 2850# to 2950#, and the E36 guys screamed "illegal comp. adj." and the CB capitulated and reset the weight to 2850#. I guess you also missed the part where this ITAC asked for weight on the car last year, and for some reason the CRB threw a flat-plat restrictor at it.
I feel bad for the ITAC on this one. The CRB did this, but it's the folks on the ITAC that are taking the heat for it. But, it sure wouldn't be the first time that the CRB (or CB) put an AdHoc committee in a tight spot.
Andy,
Point taken about the realignment. I thought you were referring to the E36. I was not aware that it was a seperate line item.
Joe,
I've got no problem w/ the CRB changing rules, but they should change the rules first, not as an aside, or after the fact. BTW, there was nothing in the notice for the E36 SIR about changing the PCA rule.
Greg (Peluso),
Your comments aren't worth reading, much less worthy of a response.
Knestis
02-15-2006, 04:11 PM
To summarize:
Some BMW entrants: "We're getting screwed and are going to hate anything that makes us go slower."
Some other BMW entrants: "Please stop embarrassing me with all of this, and just come to a decision so we can go racing."
Most other ITS entrants: <crickets chirping, thought balloon> "I'm keeping my mouth shut because whatever I say will be colored by the fact that I gain if the Bimmers lose."
Those without a dog in the fight: "This is a huge, damned mess that we shouldn't even be in. Follow the bigger policy in place, give 'em lead, and be done with it."
ITAC members: "What past crime did I commit that makes me deserving of this?"
CRB members: "Did someone call for a tee time tomorrow morning?"
K
gpeluso
02-15-2006, 04:12 PM
<_<
Bill,
I think this thead needs to end. Just let us know when you have something.
GregPeluso
BMWE46ITS
02-15-2006, 04:20 PM
Do you have any supporting info/data/facts/comparisons to support that 3100-3150 would be 'excessive' or is it pure speculation as the car has been living inside the 2850lb nirvana for years now? Something that the detractors of the process weight have yet to belly-up with.
AB
[/b]
Andy,
Supporting Data??? yeah it's called race results, please explain to me AGAIN why we can't use race results to make adjustments. Please look at the 2004 race season here in the North East, where we had top drivers in top 9.5/ 10ths prepped cars. The races always came down to the wire and you never knew if a Mazda or a BMW was going to win. The championship came down to one point and the racing was great and very clean. If you end up putting 300 lbs on the BMW it will be a major mistake and it’s just simply too much weight for the class / car. If anyone disagrees with this then please explain why the 2005 ARRC qualifying and race results for this past year were so close with the top cars and top drivers attending.
BTW arn't we just looking for close racing with different makes??
2005 Arrc race results top 8 positon/ car makes
1 BMW
2 Mazda
3 BMW
4 Datsun
5 Mazda
6 Mazda
7 Honda
8 BMW
Four different makes in the top eight positions - seems balanced to me.
specialtyautomo
02-15-2006, 04:23 PM
I'll say it again give the e36 300lbs no restrictor and rr shocks bhahahahahahahahahaha. :dead_horse:
Greg Amy
02-15-2006, 04:35 PM
Andy, slowly put down the keyboard and step away. Slowly, slowly, slowly...very good...go visit your kids, kiss your wife, etc...
OK, everyone else, move along please, there's nothing to see here...!
DavidM
02-15-2006, 05:12 PM
The ITA guys that got weight added aren't screaming. I think some of the ones that got weight added should be pretty upset.
[/b]
I got 100 lbs and think it sucks ass. I think the Integra guys got 115 and I'm guessing they think it sucks. However, we all seem to understand that the goal is to level the playing field so that the best cars and drivers win. I am taking a wait and see attitude.
My opinion is give the E36 the weight the process says it should have and be done with it. It's the same process that gave weight or took away weight from all the other cars. I think the mistake was giving the CRB a choice.
I don't think it would be such a bad idea to allow alternate mounting locations for ballast. I'm not talking about a free for all, but maybe specify 3 or 4 different areas where ballast could be located. Something like passenger footwell, behind drivers seat, behind passenger seat, or in a specific place in the trunk. That would allow some weight distribution and it wouldn't be like driving around with a fat person in the passenger seat.
David
Andy Bettencourt
02-15-2006, 05:15 PM
Andy,
Four different makes in the top eight positions - seems balanced to me. [/b]
Just another example as to why you can't use results. Selective use to support your cause.
Rob, you quote close racing in the NE in 2004. That was with UNRESTRICTED E36's. That year at the ARRC, the car you ran neck and neck with (RX-7) in your E36 was 2 seconds off the pace at RA to the unrestricted Bimmers - and was the top non-Bmw at the race.
This year, when they were restricted, it looks even - but I can provide you WAY more data points as to why the race wasn't as close as the numbers showed than you can to show otherwise.
I'll say it for the 500th time, the CRB isn't looking for ADDITIONAL restriction on the E36, just a better, more effective one that can't be cheated in a situation where you know a teardown isn't coming...hence the SIR. If you don't like that, the only other alternative is to have it weigh WHAT IT SHOULD.
And using a car count as data to support a balanced result! HA! If you want to use results, at least look at the times...maybe because it doesn't support your arguement? The Z was 1.4 seconds back, the Prelude was 2.3 seconds back...BALANCED??? I can spin the numbers as fast as you can.
Here's a revelation - it's not about results. It's about the process. :dead_horse:
Andy, slowly put down the keyboard and step away. Slowly, slowly, slowly...very good...go visit your kids, kiss your wife, etc...
OK, everyone else, move along please, there's nothing to see here...! [/b]
Dang Greg - should have looked down further! Backing away....further....further....
:birra:
[quote]
dj, have you been living under a rock for the last 3-4 years? What part of "there was no 'process' or 'formula' for spec'ing cars before this iteration of the ITAC developed one" did you miss? And I guess you missed the part where the CRB (CB at the time) changed the weight of the car from 2850# to 2950#, and the E36 guys screamed "illegal comp. adj." and the CB capitulated and reset the weight to 2850#. I guess you also missed the part where this ITAC asked for weight on the car last year, and for some reason the CRB threw a flat-plat restrictor at it.
Bill, I just a started racing ITS last year! I sold my ITE Porsche in 2000 and just got back in racing. I've never had to deal with shit like this before so this mess is new to me. To answer your question, I suppose I have been under a rock, sorry. I know nothing about this stuff before last year.
To me 2950# was not impractical IMO.
dj
Bill Miller
02-15-2006, 06:17 PM
Fair enough dj, sorry for the tone of my post. After discussing this time and time again, it's a tad frustrating to go over a lot of the history.
My opinion is give the E36 the weight the process says it should have and be done with it. It's the same process that gave weight or took away weight from all the other cars. I think the mistake was giving the CRB a choice.
[/b]
Yet another voice of reason.
seckerich
02-15-2006, 07:03 PM
We will have a meeting for "easy winners anonomous" later this month where we will add the lead in 50# increments over a 12 day period. Greg will preside over the meetings to help with the trauma. Fair racing will procede as planned at the beginning of April. :cavallo:
seamus88
02-15-2006, 08:24 PM
To hit us all at once then make us put all this weight in 3 or 4 sq. ft. to me is not good common sense.
I guess those 300 lbs. drivers using nylon belts are not safe :rolleyes:
Doc Bro
02-15-2006, 08:51 PM
even the SCCA PRO understands that if you penalize a car you do it in smaller increments. To hit us all at once then make us put all this weight in 3 or 4 sq. ft. to me is not good common sense. If you want to hit us 1st with a 100# then see if what does, then add weight as required, to me this is a common sense approach.
dj
[/b]
DJ
The "rewards weight " is an entirely different thing and cannot be included in this debate.
Secondly, adding 100 lbs on three different occasions will further make the e36 guys feel (and rightfully so) targeted and will undoubtedly further fuel their rage.
Lastly, if you are going to put 300 lbs in 3-4 sq ft on your floorboard you really need to do more homework. How about a cool suit, accusump, spare tire, "tow hooks", full tank, big stainless exhaust? Do I need to keep going?
Is the sky falling or is it just me??????
R
Ron Earp
02-15-2006, 08:58 PM
their rage.
Lastly, if you are going to put 300 lbs in 3-4 sq ft on your floorboard you really need to do more homework. How about a cool suit, accusump, spare tire, "tow hooks", full tank, big stainless exhaust? Do I need to keep going?
[/b]
As I mentioned about 20 posts ago, putting 300lbs of tungsten in the car is about 6"x6"x11" of space - plently left for all the things you mention. And it isn't a rare super expensive material either, it is fairly cheap.
If people spent as much time figured out how to put weight in their car as they did plumbing all the other things, making it faster, getting more out of the engine then adding weight wouldn't be a problem. Instead they like to say how it CAN'T be done, instead of figuring out how it can be done. But, there again, it is weight and something they don't want, so barriers pop up immediately.
Doc Bro
02-15-2006, 09:07 PM
As I mentioned about 20 posts ago, putting 300lbs of tungsten in the car is about 6"x6"x11" of space - plently left for all the things you mention. And it isn't a rare super expensive material either, it is fairly cheap.
If people spent as much time figured out how to put weight in their car as they did plumbing all the other things, making it faster, getting more out of the engine then adding weight wouldn't be a problem. Instead they like to say how it CAN'T be done, instead of figuring out how it can be done. But, there again, it is weight and something they don't want, so barriers pop up immediately.
[/b]
Ron,
Point noted about the tungsten (wolfram :lol: :lol:) but who in their right mind would take 300 lbs of add on's and elect to simply carry a block of anything around?
In regards to your second paragraph Ron, I totally agree.
"whether you say you can or you can't, either way you're right"
R
DJ
The "rewards weight " is an entirely different thing and cannot be included in this debate.
Secondly, adding 100 lbs on three different occasions will further make the e36 guys feel (and rightfully so) targeted and will undoubtedly further fuel their rage.
Lastly, if you are going to put 300 lbs in 3-4 sq ft on your floorboard you really need to do more homework. How about a cool suit, accusump, spare tire, "tow hooks", full tank, big stainless exhaust? Do I need to keep going?
Is the sky falling or is it just me??????
R
[/b]
LOL Rob, adding 100# is anything but a reward. I would have thought adding additional 100# weights is a good way to monitor the cars performance just in case someone is wrong and 300# is too much. It wouldn't bother me to do it this way. Lastly, I won't dump 300#'s of anything on my passanger floor...period. I'd like to see this SIR through if I could.
dj
zracre
02-15-2006, 09:15 PM
:birra: :birra: :birra: :birra: :birra: :birra: :birra: :birra: :birra: :birra: seems like we are going in a SIRcle...lets just see where it pans out...i still thik it is a big mistake but we cant do anything about it until some results are posted and some bigwigs make decisions on it.
robits325is
02-15-2006, 11:04 PM
Just another example as to why you can't use results. Selective use to support your cause.
Rob, you quote close racing in the NE in 2004. That was with UNRESTRICTED E36's. That year at the ARRC, the car you ran neck and neck with (RX-7) in your E36 was 2 seconds off the pace at RA to the unrestricted Bimmers - and was the top non-Bmw at the race.
[/b]
Andy - those were Jeffs comments. (Not sure if you are keeping stats on who is making comments)
MMiskoe
02-15-2006, 11:36 PM
Hey guys who were doing the testing.
So you had a couple of data points out of line. Big deal it happens, you'll figure out why, or just dismiss those points. That's why you do multiple runs on the same test.
In the mean time any chance of at least describing what & how you tested? That is what was asked for at the start of this awful thread. I don't think anyone actually asked for 6 F'ing pages of banter about what's right for the E36's.
Take the "F" out of "right answer" to this problem.
Matt
Knestis
02-16-2006, 12:17 AM
Part of the reason some folks are having a hard time getting their heads around this issue, is they just can't give up the idea that race results should drive the specification process.
PLEASE - those of you who DO understand this: Do NOT get sucked into playing that game, stooping to using one set of selectively chosen results to argue points being argued with other selectively chosen results. To engage in this kind of strategy is NOT HELPFUL to the cause.
ITAC members particularly - you've worked WAY too hard and accomplished more in the last two years than anyone has in the last 20, making the PCA process a reality. Every time you get conned into playing the results rationale card, you put all of that at risk. SIRs are evidence of how fragile your recent success is.
K
Bill Miller
02-16-2006, 12:34 AM
Part of the reason some folks are having a hard time getting their heads around this issue, is they just can't give up the idea that race results should drive the specification process.
PLEASE - those of you who DO understand this: Do NOT get sucked into playing that game, stooping to using one set of selectively chosen results to argue points being argued with other selectively chosen results. To engage in this kind of strategy is NOT HELPFUL to the cause.
ITAC members particularly - you've worked WAY too hard and accomplished more in the last two years than anyone has in the last 20, making the PCA process a reality. Every time you get conned into playing the results rationale card, you put all of that at risk. SIRs are evidence of how fragile your recent success is.
K
[/b]
Kirk,
I agree w/ you, but how do you play that w/ a rule that pretty much says you have to look at results before you can implement a restrictor?
Joe Harlan
02-16-2006, 12:45 AM
Kirk,
I agree w/ you, but how do you play that w/ a rule that pretty much says you have to look at results before you can implement a restrictor?
[/b]
You change the stinkin rule....Bill. If said car makes X amount of power outside the class index then restrictor applies. 220chp maybe should be the magic number.
Knestis
02-16-2006, 01:03 AM
I don't know if that clause was actually invoked, Bill. The PCA realignment was happening - without evident "careful review of actual racing performance" of all of the make/models involved - and the same process should have been applied to the e36. This could all have been done (hell, MUST have been done) under "Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a 'performance compensation adjustment' shall be made."
K
Bill Miller
02-16-2006, 01:22 AM
I don't know if that clause was actually invoked, Bill. The PCA realignment was happening - without evident "careful review of actual racing performance" of all of the make/models involved - and the same process should have been applied to the e36. This could all have been done (hell, MUST have been done) under "Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a 'performance compensation adjustment' shall be made."
K
[/b]
Kirk,
Do I understand you correctly in that you're saying that you can use a restrictor w/o reviewing actual racing performance (i.e. results)? If that's the case, I'm interested in the analysis of the rule that allows it.
Joe,
I have no problem w/ that. But the rule needs to be changed before you deviate from it. Otherwise, you've set aside the rule. BTW, your change would mean that the Supra would have gotten a restrictor (and a corresponding reduction in weight). I'd have much less problem w/ the SIR had that been the case.
Joe Harlan
02-16-2006, 09:36 AM
Kirk,
Do I understand you correctly in that you're saying that you can use a restrictor w/o reviewing actual racing performance (i.e. results)? If that's the case, I'm interested in the analysis of the rule that allows it.
Joe,
I have no problem w/ that. But the rule needs to be changed before you deviate from it. Otherwise, you've set aside the rule. BTW, your change would mean that the Supra would have gotten a restrictor (and a corresponding reduction in weight). I'd have much less problem w/ the SIR had that been the case.
[/b]
Bill, I assume you will sign on to the request I am sending in for the Supra?
Bill Miller
02-16-2006, 10:02 AM
Bill, I assume you will sign on to the request I am sending in for the Supra?
[/b]
Yep, so long as you sign on a request to move the 1st gen. RX7 and the AW11 MR2 to ITB w/ an SIR. :D
Joe Harlan
02-16-2006, 10:27 AM
Yep, so long as you sign on a request to move the 1st gen. RX7 and the AW11 MR2 to ITB w/ an SIR. :D
[/b]
Ha, When I was asked about what I thought on this issue I said move them with weight and don't hesitate. I think it was the wheel issue(which i think is BS) that prevented those cars from being moved. Too bad cause I think ITB is under utilized and could have used the cars.
Doc Bro
02-16-2006, 10:41 AM
Part of the reason some folks are having a hard time getting their heads around this issue, is they just can't give up the idea that race results should drive the specification process.
K
[/b]
I agree totally Kirk, no one should ever play the race [result] card!! :D :D :P
Fastfred92
02-16-2006, 10:57 AM
Part of the reason some folks are having a hard time getting their heads around this issue, is they just can't give up the idea that race results should drive the specification process.
[/b]
The problem I have with all this "process" doublespeak is that everyone throws out the "level playing field" thing yet we cant use results, we must use the "process"..... what level playing field are we talking here..... mathematics or the real field, the race track ????? And all the e36 haters quickly dismiss the ARRC results as beating a dead horse or not really as close as it looks ( black helicopters there ) and so on, I dont see any results set from any area last year that would suggest things are so out of whack but the "process" said it is so??? Did unrestricted 2850 e36's spank ass a few years back .... YES, did RX7's rule the roost before that... YES did last year with plate e36's seem closer... YES Did Steve E spank the allmighty e36 at the SIC... YES
I dont understand
Matt Rowe
02-16-2006, 11:32 AM
what level playing field are we talking here..... mathematics or the real field, the race track ?????
[/b]
The level playing field has to be the mathematics because there are too many variables to account for in on track performance. We've spent days arguing about a suitable test plan for dyno testing the SIR. About the only thing that would make most people happy would be multiple full prep, known legal motors of each make on an engine dyno with full data collection. Now take that same level of detail and apply it to race results. You would need the same driver in multiple known full prep legal cars running in the same conditions (weather, track, traffic) over multiple laps. Oh yeah and unlike a dyno you have to come up with a way to verify no one is sandbagging. Throw on top of that needing to do that same test at several tracks. It's just not practical to do that so we rely on the math.
:dead_horse: (I'm so glad I finally got to use that!)
If you really want cars balanced by race results the World Challenge does it. But they do it with far less cars, on a handful of tracks where everyone runs at the same time. They use comp adjustments on a race by race basis and a driver by driver basis. On top of that they have 10 times the level of control for spec line changes. Oh and they must spend so much money administering the system that club racing has to subsidize it. :D Personally I don't want to have to double the size of the ITAC and pay them a full time salary.
seckerich
02-16-2006, 01:43 PM
The problem I have with all this "process" doublespeak is that everyone throws out the "level playing field" thing yet we cant use results, we must use the "process"..... what level playing field are we talking here..... mathematics or the real field, the race track ????? And all the e36 haters quickly dismiss the ARRC results as beating a dead horse or not really as close as it looks ( black helicopters there ) and so on, I dont see any results set from any area last year that would suggest things are so out of whack but the "process" said it is so??? Did unrestricted 2850 e36's spank ass a few years back .... YES, did RX7's rule the roost before that... YES did last year with plate e36's seem closer... YES Did Steve E spank the allmighty e36 at the SIC... YES
I dont understand
[/b]
Don't jump on that one too quick. I got a 6-7 car length lead with a very risky outside move in one on the first lap. Garcia ran me down on the next run down the front straight and led until I took him in over his head on lap 4. He went off --see that results are not always what they seem.
Bill Miller
02-16-2006, 02:45 PM
Ha, When I was asked about what I thought on this issue I said move them with weight and don't hesitate. I think it was the wheel issue(which i think is BS) that prevented those cars from being moved. Too bad cause I think ITB is under utilized and could have used the cars.
[/b]
That's not the information I've gotten Joe. It was the fact that the cages would be out of compliance, at the higher weight. Besides, the MR2 uses 4x100 wheels, of which you can buy set after set of new 14x6 4x100 wheels for <$500, and set after set of used ones for $50 - $200. The old 7" wheels would fit on a bunch of other ITA and ITS cars.
Don't jump on that one too quick. I got a 6-7 car length lead with a very risky outside move in one on the first lap. Garcia ran me down on the next run down the front straight and led until I took him in over his head on lap 4. He went off --see that results are not always what they seem.
[/b]
Didn't Rob Huffmaster walk away from Garcia at ARRC? I believe he did. But I do agree you can't use results for anything more than a sign.
Steve, do you know if Garcia's BMW is Motec'ed? I was at ARRC and noticed how nice his car was but never got to look at it in the pits. The sob took my number too. :D
dj
Joe Harlan
02-16-2006, 04:20 PM
That's not the information I've gotten Joe. It was the fact that the cages would be out of compliance, at the higher weight. Besides, the MR2 uses 4x100 wheels, of which you can buy set after set of new 14x6 4x100 wheels for <$500, and set after set of used ones for $50 - $200. The old 7" wheels would fit on a bunch of other ITA and ITS cars.
[/b] Bill, You bring up the other part that I had forgot. I remember the wheel deal because I think it is one of the stupidest arguments in SCCA...Cage deal is a little different.
seckerich
02-16-2006, 04:28 PM
Didn't Rob Huffmaster walk away from Garcia at ARRC? I believe he did. But I do agree you can't use results for anything more than a sign.
Steve, do you know if Garcia's BMW is Motec'ed? I was at ARRC and noticed how nice his car was but never got to look at it in the pits. The sob took my number too. :D
dj
[/b]
10/10ths bimmerworld and I'm sure he said he had Motec. We rag each other in impound but Carlos is straight up. Rob was pulling away through the corners and he carrys lots of speed. He is a very good driver for his age. He ran one of our RX8's at Daytona with his father and they were both fast. Ask me at the track sometime and I will show you incar of the speed difference in mine and some of the bimmers.
BMW RACER
02-16-2006, 04:44 PM
Are anymore SIR/No SIR dyno tests planned for this weekend??
INQUIRING MINDS NEED TO KNOW!
10/10ths bimmerworld and I'm sure he said he had Motec. We rag each other in impound but Carlos is straight up. Rob was pulling away through the corners and he carrys lots of speed. He is a very good driver for his age. He ran one of our RX8's at Daytona with his father and they were both fast. Ask me at the track sometime and I will show you incar of the speed difference in mine and some of the bimmers.
[/b]
Yea I know Rob & Ray his dad, both are as you say straight up, good drivers and all around very nice guys.
I wished I had a chance to talk to Carlos @ ARRC but was to busy to get over to talk to him.
This SIR will slow us down. hehe
Are anymore SIR/No SIR dyno tests planned for this weekend??
INQUIRING MINDS NEED TO KNOW!
[/b]
I HEARD THESE WAS MORE TESTING THIS WEEKEND, BUT THEY WON'T POST ANYTHING......TOP SECERT!!!
THEY COULD TELL YOU BUT THEN WOULD HAVE TO KILL YOU! :D
steve s
02-16-2006, 10:02 PM
carlos car does not run a motec.stock computer!!!!
the hp # they claim the bmw makes we cannot make those #s. if bruce is making those #s he should be faster than us or maybe those #s are to sell his car.??????
we started testing with the SIR and we had alot of prooblem .runs rich stalls out problem idling ,etc.very discouraging.
hell at 3000 rpm the car almost died. we may switch class???? we're talking about it.
all i'm going to say is 27mm is way too small.cannot even make 160 whp.
didn't want to say anything b4 this.we already missed 1 race because of the SIR. at least we have a break till april. but eeeven then they should give us at least 3months notice to develop the car. :dead_horse:
Knestis
02-16-2006, 10:07 PM
Yay! Another vote for lead.
K
carlos car does not run a motec.stock computer!!!!
the hp # they claim the bmw makes we cannot make those #s. if bruce is making those #s he should be faster than us or maybe those #s are to sell his car.??????
we started testing with the SIR and we had alot of prooblem .runs rich stalls out problem idling ,etc.very discouraging.
hell at 3000 rpm the car almost died. we may switch class???? we're talking about it.
all i'm going to say is 27mm is way too small.cannot even make 160 whp.
didn't want to say anything b4 this.we already missed 1 race because of the SIR. at least we have a break till april. but eeeven then they should give us at least 3months notice to develop the car. :dead_horse:
[/b]
Steve, thanks for the info. We have heard the same things from different BMW engine builders.
You need to find out what dyno Bruce is using, maybe his is reading high, or yours is read low? Different dynos read differently.
Carlo's car is very well prepared & driven well from what I saw at ARRC.
Best of luck to you guys.
dj
Joe Harlan
02-17-2006, 12:06 AM
carlos car does not run a motec.stock computer!!!!
the hp # they claim the bmw makes we cannot make those #s. if bruce is making those #s he should be faster than us or maybe those #s are to sell his car.??????
we started testing with the SIR and we had alot of prooblem .runs rich stalls out problem idling ,etc.very discouraging.
hell at 3000 rpm the car almost died. we may switch class???? we're talking about it.
all i'm going to say is 27mm is way too small.cannot even make 160 whp.
didn't want to say anything b4 this.we already missed 1 race because of the SIR. at least we have a break till april. but eeeven then they should give us at least 3months notice to develop the car. :dead_horse:
[/b]
Steve, I have been doing research on the problem John Norris said he was having. I called him and recommended that he try putting the SIR between the MAF and the throttle body. I am convinced the issue is the SIR is causing the MAF to see to much velocity in air flow. I am pretty convinced that the SIR will function properly between the MAF and the TB.
Knestis
02-17-2006, 12:31 AM
I don't know why but I'd presume that the best approach would be to put the SIR at the very beginning of the system, in front of a big plenum, then the MAF (et al.). Strive for some fluid damping effect with a large volume of air to slow the transition to/from sonic airflow and SIR effect. Also decrease stream velocities and/or turbulence at the MAF.
K
GKR_17
02-17-2006, 12:33 AM
Tungsten (W) is very dense to the tune of 19250 kg/m^3. Or, 1198 lbs/ft^3. All you’d need for 300 lbs is a block 6” x 6” x 11”, or variations of that theme. Go to www.onlinemetals.com and they will size one up for you... ...And it isn't a rare super expensive material either, it is fairly cheap.
[/b]
Not that this is relavent to SIR's, but a look at onlinemetals.com doesn't show it in their inventory. Also, the ballpark number I've heard for tungsten block is $75+ per pound, which works out to $22,500 for that 300 lb. sample. If that's cheap, I need to start marketing Jensen parts.
Joe Harlan
02-17-2006, 12:38 AM
I don't know why but I'd presume that the best approach would be to put the SIR at the very beginning of the system, in front of a big plenum, then the MAF (et al.). Strive for some fluid damping effect with a large volume of air to slow the transition to/from sonic airflow and SIR effect. Also decrease stream velocities and/or turbulence at the MAF.
K
[/b]Kirk that was my original thought but packaging under the IT rules don't make for enough room there and I am not sure you can make a box big enough to slow the air enough to stop the effect it is having on the SIR. Putting it between the MAF and the TB will allow the maf still read actual air intake that is being gulped by the engine.
BMW RACER
02-17-2006, 12:54 AM
Not that this is relavent to SIR's, but a look at onlinemetals.com doesn't show it in their inventory. Also, the ballpark number I've heard for tungsten block is $75+ per pound, which works out to $22,500 for that 300 lb. sample. If that's cheap, I need to start marketing Jensen parts.
THAT'S HILARIOUS! AND I WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE COST OF SHIPPING!
Joe Harlan
02-17-2006, 01:20 AM
Not that this is relavent to SIR's, but a look at onlinemetals.com doesn't show it in their inventory. Also, the ballpark number I've heard for tungsten block is $75+ per pound, which works out to $22,500 for that 300 lb. sample. If that's cheap, I need to start marketing Jensen parts.
THAT'S HILARIOUS! AND I WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE COST OF SHIPPING!
[/b]
Kinda makes the SIR deal look a little cheaper...... :happy204:
Bill Miller
02-17-2006, 07:38 AM
Not that this is relavent to SIR's, but a look at onlinemetals.com doesn't show it in their inventory. Also, the ballpark number I've heard for tungsten block is $75+ per pound, which works out to $22,500 for that 300 lb. sample. If that's cheap, I need to start marketing Jensen parts.
THAT'S HILARIOUS! AND I WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE COST OF SHIPPING!
[/b]
From the Tungsten Company (www.tungstenco.com)
Density 1.5x lead, 2.5x steel
Cost 10x lead, 10x steel
I'm sorry, but I don't see a whole lot of sense in using something that costs 10x as much as lead, but will only reduce the volume of the plate by 1/3.
Not that this is relavent to SIR's, but a look at onlinemetals.com doesn't show it in their inventory. Also, the ballpark number I've heard for tungsten block is $75+ per pound, which works out to $22,500 for that 300 lb. sample. If that's cheap, I need to start marketing Jensen parts.
THAT'S HILARIOUS! AND I WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE COST OF SHIPPING!
[/b]
If you can afford the Tungsten, you can afford the shipping. Or to hell with the weight for that kind of money go buy a different car that doesn't need weight or a SIR. :D
Ron Earp
02-17-2006, 11:25 AM
Hmmm, maybe this won't be so cheap. Ron M. got a 100lb block of it for $50 though, but, it was a piece in a shop just lying around. I bought some from our machine shop on campus around about 1998 for $40 and it weighed right at 30lbs - we used it for dead weight in a throwing contraption. Sorry if I've lead anyone astray. Pun intended. Sound like both of us have an investment that has made money!
Maybe Osmium? Tiny bit more dense than tungsten, probably costs more too!
Ron
MikeBlaszczak
02-17-2006, 07:12 PM
Maybe Osmium? Tiny bit more dense than tungsten, probably costs more too!
[/b]I'm going straight to unobtanium.
Bill Miller
02-17-2006, 07:30 PM
I'm going straight to unobtanium.
[/b]
Is that like an air bearing?? :D
Ron Earp
02-17-2006, 10:24 PM
If you can afford the Tungsten, you can afford the shipping. Or to hell with the weight for that kind of money go buy a different car that doesn't need weight or a SIR. :D
[/b]
Yeah, go get a Jensen. Lightest car in ITS - needs no weight or restrictor. Also needs a lot of work to race, but hey, you won't be part of the entitled crowd with one!
Z3_GoCar
02-17-2006, 10:29 PM
Is that like an air bearing?? :D
[/b]
With Air bearings, you can breath.....
Unobtainium you can't breath......
it's unobtainable :P
I say go with DU.... depleated Uranium.... sure you may glow afterward, but you'll no longer need to light your instruments :lol:
James
GKR_17
02-19-2006, 11:02 PM
... I think everyone has to look at the car they are considering building and if it doesn't add up on paper that it may be a contender - then the stupid thing may very well be spending big money to build one and then crying wolf when prod-style comp adjustments are the only thing that will bring it to the podium...
AB
[/b]
This quote was from a different topic, and would seem to contradict much of what has been said here.
Grafton
Andy Bettencourt
02-20-2006, 11:00 AM
This quote was from a different topic, and would seem to contradict much of what has been said here.
Grafton [/b]
Besides the fact that it is out of context and about a different topic... :rolleyes:
...how do you feel it contradicts? I think it actually supports. All of the changes are being done to a 'process'. The process is on paper and has nothing to do with on-track performance. If you look at the specs of a car on paper, and you feel it isn't the best choice, build something else!
The BMW is an exception. It was decided to keep the weight at 2850 and reverse engineer the 'process', hence the SIR (and flat plate from a year ago for that matter).
It would be great if we could just put this to bed asap. We are working on it.
AB
Any news yet on the SIR tests?
mlytle
02-21-2006, 12:47 PM
Any news yet on the SIR tests?
[/b]
jeez dan, you trying to bring this thread back on topic or something? B)
jeez dan, you trying to bring this thread back on topic or something? B)
[/b]
Did I miss something? I thought Jake was suppost to post data from the SIR's they tested? Didn't they postpone posting 1 week due to conflicting data or something like that?
Andy Bettencourt
02-21-2006, 01:46 PM
(edit Forgot about some testing in the center of the country - was referring to local stuff Jake might have attended like he did the first round). More local stuff is scheduled for the 25th. Then we will look at all the data and recommend the appropriate changes, if any. Then we will lay it all out for you.
Time is critcal, we know.
AB
lateapex911
02-21-2006, 11:51 PM
Yup, we did some tesitng this past weekend, and have another test scheduled for this coming Saturday. I haven't forgoten, and will spill soon, but remember, my original post stated I would post whatever the participants were comfortable with me posting. We have gotten a ton of help on this deal from some great guys, and we are getting much closer.
Hang in there.
I would post whatever the participants were comfortable with me posting. We have gotten a ton of help on this deal from some great guys, and we are getting much closer.
Hang in there.
[/b]
It's good that you got some help, we don't want any names! Nobody cares about who, we only care about procedures and realistic data.
I see the Raetech have modified their catalog to include up to 29 mm SIR's. From what I'm hearing I guess 27 mm SIR is useless as tits on a boar hog when installed on a ITS BMW. B)
Hanging
dj
Andy Bettencourt
02-26-2006, 02:29 PM
Thanks for all your patience. We have more data from Saturday and a con-call Monday night. I hope to have something hashed then. I can't commit to the official notice of the final decision, but it will be ASAP.
AB
gpeluso
02-26-2006, 03:48 PM
:D AB,
Who are the actual individuals making the call on the E36 SIR or weight issue? Who's the head of the group? I'm interested in the process you guys/gals use to correct situations. Thanks for your investigation into this matter of the E36.
Thanks Again,
Greg
Thanks for all your patience. We have more data from Saturday and a con-call Monday night. I hope to have something hashed then. I can't commit to the official notice of the final decision, but it will be ASAP.
AB
[/b]
Andy Bettencourt
02-26-2006, 04:29 PM
:D AB,
Who are the actual individuals making the call on the E36 SIR or weight issue? Who's the head of the group? I'm interested in the process you guys/gals use to correct situations. Thanks for your investigation into this matter of the E36.
Thanks Again,
Greg
[/b]
The ITAC will discuss the issue on a con-call with 2 CRB liesons present. The ITAC will make a recommendation and the CRB will make a final decision. I would assume the 3 choices are:
- Keep the 27mm SIR based on tests and data
- Resize the SIR based on tests and data
- Eliminate all SIR/FPR's and reset the E36 weight based on the current new-classification process
AB
DoubleD
02-28-2006, 12:54 PM
we have two data points that don't jive with each other. Further testing is scheduled.
AB
[/b]
lol. yeah, reality didn't jive with your math.
from reading this cluster**** of a thread, you'll be testing multiple sizes now...
but hey, all those folks who told you that this had to be tested first...they were all just biased, right?
ITAC might be the 2nd best thing that ever happened to NASA
The ITAC will discuss the issue on a con-call with 2 CRB liesons present. The ITAC will make a recommendation and the CRB will make a final decision. I would assume the 3 choices are:
- Keep the 27mm SIR based on tests and data
- Resize the SIR based on tests and data
- Eliminate all SIR/FPR's and reset the E36 weight based on the current new-classification process
AB
[/b]
Would it be to much to ask, if you could give us any info on your conversations with the CRB & ITAC? What ever you can tell us would be helpfull.
Thanks
seckerich
02-28-2006, 01:39 PM
lol. yeah, reality didn't jive with your math.
from reading this cluster**** of a thread, you'll be testing multiple sizes now...
but hey, all those folks who told you that this had to be tested first...they were all just biased, right?
ITAC might be the 2nd best thing that ever happened to NASA
[/b]
Actually you should kiss their collective a---- as they have bent over backwards to give the BMW a break. Run it through the process and give it the lead and quit this BS. It kills me that the CRB lacks the balls to get this right. It should have never been an either-or decision in the first place. You only got the weight you have because the board was suckered in the first place to allow the vanos at the same weight and then would not correct it because of the limit on ballast rule. Nasa needs people like you--GOOOOOOO
Andy Bettencourt
02-28-2006, 02:01 PM
lol. yeah, reality didn't jive with your math.
from reading this cluster**** of a thread, you'll be testing multiple sizes now...
but hey, all those folks who told you that this had to be tested first...they were all just biased, right?
ITAC might be the 2nd best thing that ever happened to NASA [/b]
WOW! What an awesome post!!!
:015:
Ron Earp
02-28-2006, 02:05 PM
Actually you should kiss their collective a---- as they have bent over backwards to give the BMW a break. Run it through the process and give it the lead and quit this BS. [/b]
This has been mentioned numerous times and is incredibly true. Why does this car get special treatment? Because the BMW owners complain about the weight and that the car is
unraceable"? BS.
The car should be treated like everything else in IT and run through the process, letting it fall where it may. If it gets lead and is unracable, too bad. Get another car, make do and adapt, or take it BMWCCA. I haven't run my JH, it might not be competitive at all, but the neither the ITAC or the GCR guarantees that it will be competitive and I don't expect them to. You take your pick, take your chances, and make the best of it.
I think the ITAC shouldn't have given the choice to the CRB. The CRB, with accepting so many other adjustments and classifications on other cars from the ITAC, would have had to accept the BMW weight recommendation or they would appear biased. Wait....
R
Andy Bettencourt
02-28-2006, 02:07 PM
Would it be to much to ask, if you could give us any info on your conversations with the CRB & ITAC? What ever you can tell us would be helpfull.
Thanks [/b]
There is still more testing to be done to verify the exact sizing. It's in the CRB's hands now to complete the data collection and determine either to implement the SIR or to correct the weight. 1 month until April 1. I am not sure how giving you any info out of context before all of it comes in is helpful to anyone.
AB
There is still more testing to be done to verify the exact sizing. It's in the CRB's hands now to complete the data collection and determine either to implement the SIR or to correct the weight. 1 month until April 1. I am not sure how giving you any info out of context before all of it comes in is helpful to anyone.
AB
[/b]
So this means the results of all the testing so far completed, means the tests are still inconclusive and there is no information to be shared with the members involved at this time?
dj
I would say this means that while some of the tests are done, the testing is not completed. I think it is reasonable to assume that the ITAC is reluctant to give out partial information. You can't do a test and only use selected bits of the sample group. It appears the ITAC and the CRB are waiting for ALL the samples to be gathered before reaching a conclusion. That does not mean that the results thus far are inconclusive, it means they are incomplete. There is a difference.
John
gpeluso
02-28-2006, 06:39 PM
:happy204: AB,
I thought things were going to be hashed out on MONDAY. Tomorrow is March 1. I bet you have been working on getting your miata ready, the BMW guys are in limbo. I don't want to argue, but maybe this should be work inprogress for next year. Now, back to the PROCESS. What WHP NUMBERS are you using to come up with this? The longer you wait car counts will be affected. You can act like you don't care if people leave, but you should. I was at VIR two weeks ago at a NASA wevent. It was the biggest turnout they ever had. Why is that? I'm not saying it is your fault at all, but recognize what is going on. NASA is building credibility. At the rate you are going part of the season will be run with different restrictions for the BMW. Do you want that? I think everyone has been very patient over the last two weeks.
Greg
I haven't run my JH, it might not be competitive at all, but the neither the ITAC or the GCR guarantees that it will be competitive and I don't expect them to.
R
[/b]
It's sure not because the ITAC or CRB made rules so your JH wasn't competitive, was it? :D How many people run JH's in ITS? How many run BMW 325's? B)
lateapex911
02-28-2006, 10:39 PM
Guys, this is far from simple. Even the discussions are not simple within the ITAC, and then you add the CRB...and the bottom line is, sadly, that the data is not complete.
Trust me when I tell you that I have never worked harder for something so removed from my world, LOL...of course, the health of IT is important to me, so I felt it was extremely important to fully understand the real world implications and affects the SIR could and would have, before moving forward. And moving forward means committing to the 27...or a 25 or a 35, or another flat plate restrictor or adding weight.
The commitees do not wish to visit this again. So this is the time to do it and get it right.
As Andy said,
-The CRB is continuing to get some final peices of the puzzle
-They know our (the ITACs) views at this point in time
-They will decide the final action, and the timeline.
I honestly will know what happens when you know what happens...it has not been decided, nor even hinted at.
You E36 guys should be very thankful to the guys who have stepped up and put their cars through days of dyno runs...I wish I could name names, but I can't. One guy in particular has had his car on the rollers for over 14 hours..thanks!
Right now, you guys can go race and enjoy. Whatever the final outcome, I am sure that you will have the resources and time needed to implement it. If that's not good enough, and you want to go race with another sanctioning body, fine...but don't claim you were run off.
lateapex911
02-28-2006, 10:53 PM
:happy204: AB,
I thought things were going to be hashed out on MONDAY. Tomorrow is March 1. I bet you have been working on getting your miata ready, the BMW guys are in limbo. .
Greg
[/b]
hey Greg...I don't know if Andy has been working on his car or not, but I can tell you this...the ONLY work I have had time to do has been on the ITAC and E36 issues. Since September, this work has accounted for fully 25% of my 8 days off. How many hours have I spent prepping MY car in the past few months? Zero. The holidays and two days at the ARRCs to observe account for all the rest of my days off.
I know, thats what I signed up for, and it's fine. And I appreciate your point...but I get a little annoyed when things like that are said. Andy, nor the ITAC or the CRB are putting their own agendas first.
This whole restrictor part was added to the PCA language by the CRB, and the SIR recommendation was by the CRB, of course, as they are the actual rulemakers. but the ITAC feels VERY strongly about the process, and has bent over backwards to make sure that whatever happens is fair, and fits the process, and the philosophy of the category. The E36 just happens to be the model name of a car that has qualities that have become troublesome vis a vis the rest of the class.
Again, this is all about the process. The ITAC and the CRB are working hard and sacrificing their time, their programs so that all cars fit the process to the greatest extent reasonable.
Ron Earp
02-28-2006, 10:58 PM
It's sure not because the ITAC or CRB made rules so your JH wasn't competitive, was it? :D How many people run JH's in ITS? How many run BMW 325's? B)
[/b]
Doesn't matter if there is one, or one hundred.
The car has more hp stock than any other ITS car save the Supra, has great brakes, great suspension, and is a fantastic track car platform. If any car should run through the process and take what is given, this is it. It doesn't need allowances made for poor brakes, lack of power, bad chassis design, or difficult development. The mistake was made when the car was simply classed at too light of a weight and nobody wants to have weight added.
Be interesting to see what the recommendation is after all the data collection.
lateapex911
02-28-2006, 11:26 PM
I would say this means that while some of the tests are done, the testing is not completed. ......... That does not mean that the results thus far are inconclusive, it means they are incomplete. There is a difference.
John
[/b]
Pretty good first post, John.
Welcome!
We all get along just fine at the track, don't let this silliness scare you in any way. ;)
Bill Miller
03-01-2006, 03:55 AM
Actually you should kiss their collective a---- as they have bent over backwards to give the BMW a break. Run it through the process and give it the lead and quit this BS. It kills me that the CRB lacks the balls to get this right. It should have never been an either-or decision in the first place. You only got the weight you have because the board was suckered in the first place to allow the vanos at the same weight and then would not correct it because of the limit on ballast rule. Nasa needs people like you--GOOOOOOO
[/b]
:023: :023: :023: :023: :023:
It's sure not because the ITAC or CRB made rules so your JH wasn't competitive, was it? How many people run JH's in ITS? How many run BMW 325's? [/b]
Wow dj, the number of examples of a given car that are raced, should influence policy decisions. Yeah, I'm ok w/ that. :o :blink:
I would say this means that while some of the tests are done, the testing is not completed. I think it is reasonable to assume that the ITAC is reluctant to give out partial information. You can't do a test and only use selected bits of the sample group. It appears the ITAC and the CRB are waiting for ALL the samples to be gathered before reaching a conclusion. That does not mean that the results thus far are inconclusive, it means they are incomplete. There is a difference.
John
[/b]
Is this post from 1st hand knowledge or is this just an a assumption on your part? THERE IS A DIFFERNECE. B)
Never ass u me anything.
I could give a rats ass about anything anyone has to say on anything but pure data of facts that is realevant to the SIR's being tested. This is why I'm here PERIOD.
Sure we are thankful for the hard work these people are putting in but the guy with the BMW and dyno is benefiting from this as he should. But lets not lose site of a couple of things. 1. the only reason the RP did not work is because of the beveling of the spacer plate. Remove the spacer plate or not allow the beveling of it and it would work. We would be completely screwed if we would have had to work out this SIR BS our selves. We (BMW) are the test rats for the future SCCA restrictions on the other classes. A smaller RP would have worked and been a hell of a lot cheaper.
These posts are open to attacks from some people. Instead of opinions and assumptions, lets stay with facts.
So this means the results of all the testing so far completed, means the tests are still inconclusive and there is no information to be shared with the members involved at this time?
dj
[/b]
Is this post from 1st hand knowledge or is this just an a assumption on your part? THERE IS A DIFFERNECE. B)
Never ass u me anything.
I could give a rats ass about anything anyone has to say on anything but pure data of facts that is realevant to the SIR's being tested. This is why I'm here PERIOD.
Sure we are thankful for the hard work these people are putting in but the guy with the BMW and dyno is benefiting from this as he should. But lets not lose site of a couple of things. 1. the only reason the RP did not work is because of the beveling of the spacer plate. Remove the spacer plate or not allow the beveling of it and it would work. We would be completely screwed if we would have had to work out this SIR BS our selves. We (BMW) are the test rats for the future SCCA restrictions on the other classes. A smaller RP would have worked and been a hell of a lot cheaper.
These posts are open to attacks from some people. Instead of opinions and assumptions, lets stay with facts.
[/b]
If you notice my wording such as "I would say","I think" and "It appears ", you can answer your own first question. While I haven't been present for any of these tests, I have talked to two "tuners" who have done testing in the last two weeks on e36's with 27mm SIR's. One was MoTec equipped, one was not. Based on a combination of this data and the postings from the ITAC, I arrived at a reasonable deduction. Without this "reason", it would have only been an assumption. That deduction is the same thing they have said repeatedly. The testing is/was incomplete at that time.
Yes, the initial time period was too short for implementation. Yes, there could/should have been more thorough testing prior to the intial rule change. Yes, the time period has been backed up to allow the time for testing(both individuals, and SCCA) I hope you have written the CRB about this already??? Or are you just here talking about it? The CRB is who put the rule into place, not the ITAC. :dead_horse:
John
p.s. yelling isn't necessary... :)
Ron Earp
03-01-2006, 11:00 AM
I hope you have written the CRB about this already??? Or are you just here talking about it? The CRB is who put the rule into place, not the ITAC. :dead_horse:
[/b]
I am writing one right now. I agree with you, the CRB put the rule in place. But, while I feel the ITAC does a great job I think the ITAC made a mistake in giving the CRB a choice. They should have justified the weight process as being consistent with every other car in class and then the CRB would have had to go with the recommendation. If the CRB rejected the recommendation then they were playing politics and showing their true colors, blue and white with a black border.
Ron
Andy Bettencourt
03-01-2006, 11:30 AM
I am writing one right now. I agree with you, the CRB put the rule in place. But, while I feel the ITAC does a great job I think the ITAC made a mistake in giving the CRB a choice. They should have justified the weight process as being consistent with every other car in class and then the CRB would have had to go with the recommendation. If the CRB rejected the recommendation then they were playing politics and showing their true colors, blue and white with a black border.
Ron [/b]
Make no mistake, just because the SIR was an option in the 2005 recommendation to the CRB doesn't make it some sort if error. The CRB has restrictors in their 'quiver' based on the PCA language in the ITCS. Just because we mentioned it, doesn't mean it was then an option when it wouldn't have been before. They went with it because they thought it was the best decision at the time.
We have received member input on this. Here is what it looks like:
- Give us the weight, I don't want to be restricted
- Give us a properly sized SIR because the car will be undriveable at 3150-3200
- Give everyone in ITS an SIR
- Keep things as they were in 2005
- Remove the restrictions from the E36 and restrict the RX-7
- Some people think weight won't slow the cars, it will just wear stuff out faster
- Some people think the SIR will cripple the car and make it worth nothing
- Request of a full revamp of the ITAC
- Some people want the car out of ITS altogether
While the ITAC is virtually out of the process now (meaning it is in the hands of the CRB), I believe that the members of the CRB will do what they think is right for it's members - no matter what you drive.
AB
DoubleD
03-01-2006, 12:17 PM
I am writing one right now. I agree with you, the CRB put the rule in place. But, while I feel the ITAC does a great job I think the ITAC made a mistake in giving the CRB a choice. They should have justified the weight process as being consistent with every other car in class and then the CRB would have had to go with the recommendation. If the CRB rejected the recommendation then they were playing politics and showing their true colors, blue and white with a black border.
Ron
[/b]
I love the attempt to divorce ITAC from any responsibility. It's hillarious.
Ron Earp
03-01-2006, 12:30 PM
I love the attempt to divorce ITAC from any responsibility. It's hillarious.
[/b]
DoubleD, I'm not on the ITAC and certainly don't try to defend them. I think they did a nice job over the last year or so with trying to make IT a level playing field and correcting wrongs. IMHO the system of rules authorization is broken - why does something from the ITAC require approval from a board that is completely uninterested in IT racing? Let them govern their fiefdom of aging Britsh Prod cars and leave us alone.
R
Andy Bettencourt
03-01-2006, 12:41 PM
I love the attempt to divorce ITAC from any responsibility. It's hillarious. [/b]
:015:
Funny, Ron is actually hoding the ITAC responsible in the post you quoted.
The ITAC makes NO decisions. We recommend. The CRB has indeed relied on us more in recent years to determine overall category direction, but the CRB and BoD are the decision and policy makers. The implementation of the FPR in 2005 was a CRB move (not introduced by the ITAC), and the SIR was an OPTION, not the primary recommendation in 2006. As a point of fact, the 'restrictor plate' language in the PCA clause in the ITCS was inserted (and developed) by the CRB, not the ITAC.
I for one, am tired of taking misdirected pot-shots from the ill-informed on this topic. We put ourselves out here to help people understand, debate, and relay ideas and opinions. No problem answering the hard questions with people who disagree, but write your letter if you have an opinion.
Can't quite remember any from a "DoubleD". :rolleyes:
AB
IMHO the system of rules authorization is broken - why does something from the ITAC require approval from a board that is completely uninterested in IT racing? Let them govern their fiefdom of aging Britsh Prod cars and leave us alone.
R [/b]
Ron,
If I felt like the CRB didn't care, or was uninterested in Improved Touring, I wouldn't be volunteering my time on the ITAC.
AB
Ron Earp
03-01-2006, 01:30 PM
Ron,
If I felt like the CRB didn't care, or was uninterested in Improved Touring, I wouldn't be volunteering my time on the ITAC.
AB
[/b]
I hear you, and I believe you and the others. I don't know any CRB members, but my impression from the entire system (and my impression is mainly formed from this forum and the SM forum) is that far more time is spent on Prod, Touring, and other forms of club racing than IT. Despite the fact, and it is fact because you can simply look at registration numbers for regional and in some cases national events, IT has a lot more entries than the other classes all together. I'm with you, if I didn't care I wouldn't spend time writing on a forum like this either.
And yes, ITAC responsible - but only for allowing the CRB the fredoom to choose. Why give them a choice? The ITAC knew what was right, they should've held firm and submitted the weight recommendation. If the CRB didn't go for it, but did with XX other cars that were adjusted at the same time as per ITAC recommendations, then you knew the CRB bled blue, white, and black.
R
Bill Miller
03-01-2006, 02:06 PM
And yes, ITAC responsible - but only for allowing the CRB the fredoom to choose. Why give them a choice? The ITAC knew what was right, they should've held firm and submitted the weight recommendation. If the CRB didn't go for it, but did with XX other cars that were adjusted at the same time as per ITAC recommendations, then you knew the CRB bled blue, white, and black.[/b]
Ron,
That's pretty much what the did last year. IIRC, the ITAC asked for weight, and was given a FPR instead. Seems pretty black and white (and I guess blue) to me.
Andy Bettencourt
03-01-2006, 02:23 PM
And yes, ITAC responsible - but only for allowing the CRB the fredoom to choose. Why give them a choice? The ITAC knew what was right, they should've held firm and submitted the weight recommendation. If the CRB didn't go for it, but did with XX other cars that were adjusted at the same time as per ITAC recommendations, then you knew the CRB bled blue, white, and black.
R [/b]
This is where you aren't listening. The ITAC does not have the power to give the CRB any 'freedom to choose'. They can do what they want, when they want, within their policies and procedures. They don't have to take ANY recommendation the ITAC puts forth. ANY. We ADVISE, they DECIDE.
Again, I do not believe the current CRB bleeds anything other than blood. If I did, there is no way I would be doing this stuff.
AB
Ron Earp
03-01-2006, 02:42 PM
Sorry Andy if I have my info wrong. I'm listening, but just not clear on how things happened. My impression was that the ITAC said "weight" or "SIR" and the CRB said "SIR".
From your writing it looks like the ITAC said "weight" and they said "SIR".
If this is how it went down then heck, it would cause you to lose some faith in the CRB even listening to the ITAC.
Still, the ITAC is doing a good job despite the flak and mess.
Andy Bettencourt
03-01-2006, 02:54 PM
Sorry Andy if I have my info wrong. I'm listening, but just not clear on how things happened. My impression was that the ITAC said "weight" or "SIR" and the CRB said "SIR".
From your writing it looks like the ITAC said "weight" and they said "SIR".
If this is how it went down then heck, it would cause you to lose some faith in the CRB even listening to the ITAC.
Still, the ITAC is doing a good job despite the flak and mess. [/b]
You are right in this:
The ITAC said weight or an SIR - first choice weight.
BUT:
The CRB could have said SIR even if we said weight only. That is the point. We didn't empower them in ANY WAY by suggesting 2 choices. Period.
When a decision goes against our recommendations, *I* personally make an effort to understand why they did what they did and then be able to explain it to any who asks.
AB
lateapex911
03-01-2006, 04:34 PM
I love the attempt to divorce ITAC from any responsibility. It's hillarious.
[/b]
What, are you a selective reader??? What part of "The ITAC made a mistake by...." is unclear????
You certainly have NO idea what went on on the con calls, and we on the ITAC have no idea what goes on in the CRB discussions!
Here's the simple version for you:
E36 needs a check, it doesn't fit the process. ITAC wants weight. CRB specs a flat plate. (Dyno results show the effect was very very minor)
Round 2- E36 STILL doesn't meet the process....ITAC wants weight, but discusses new SIR technology as a 2nd choice. CRB decides on SIR. Timeline is very short. Discussion ensues, timeline is retracted, and testing is done, sponsored by the CRB, with ITAC involvement. The ITAC wants a very clear understanding of the results so as to make their recommendation.
The CRB is responsible for all category decisions, and oversees the fitment of the categories as a whole. The ITAC is responsible for the category rules and classing recommendations, but the CRB is the acting power. They do as they see fit.
In this case, they decided on the SIR for a variety of reasons.
I'm not trying to accept or pin blame, becuase A- we are all trying to do what's best, and B- There is NO decision yet!!!!!
Knestis
03-01-2006, 04:53 PM
:happy204: AB,
I thought things were going to be hashed out on MONDAY. Tomorrow is March 1. I bet you have been working on getting your miata ready, the BMW guys are in limbo. ...[/b]
Wotta crappy thing to say. ITAC - go really slow on the decision and blame this comment whenever someone asks.
K
Bill Miller
03-01-2006, 05:22 PM
Wotta crappy thing to say. ITAC - go really slow on the decision and blame this comment whenever someone asks.
K
[/b]
Problem w/ that approach is that it actually benefits ther person that made the comment (gets to still run his E36 w/ the FPR from '05). :mad1:
Problem w/ that approach is that it actually benefits ther person that made the comment (gets to still run his E36 w/ the FPR from '05). :mad1:
[/b]
Nothing wrong with the FRP, just don't let us bevel the spacer plate and it will reduce hp. :D
lateapex911
03-01-2006, 06:35 PM
Wotta crappy thing to say. ITAC - go really slow on the decision and blame this comment whenever someone asks.
K
[/b]
We'd love to! But we don't operate that way. We try to make each car fit the procedure and give all letters and people their fair due.
But as you can see, the comment didn't "resonate" nicely with me...
(and yes, the first sentence was a joke...)
What, are you a selective reader??? What part of "The ITAC made a mistake by...." is unclear????
You certainly have NO idea what went on on the con calls, and we on the ITAC have no idea what goes on in the CRB discussions!
Here's the simple version for you:
E36 needs a check, it doesn't fit the process. ITAC wants weight. CRB specs a flat plate. (Dyno results show the effect was very very minor)
Round 2- E36 STILL doesn't meet the process....ITAC wants weight, but discusses new SIR technology as a 2nd choice. CRB decides on SIR. Timeline is very short. Discussion ensues, timeline is retracted, and testing is done, sponsored by the CRB, with ITAC involvement. The ITAC wants a very clear understanding of the results so as to make their recommendation.
The CRB is responsible for all category decisions, and oversees the fitment of the categories as a whole. The ITAC is responsible for the category rules and classing recommendations, but the CRB is the acting power. They do as they see fit.
In this case, they decided on the SIR for a variety of reasons.
I'm not trying to accept or pin blame, becuase A- we are all trying to do what's best, and B- There is NO decision yet!!!!!
[/b]
Jake,
Are there going to be future tests with the E36 & SIR's? If not, is the decision in the CRB's hands now? The suspense is killing me. :D Jake from what you have seen, do you believe in SIR technology? Just want your opinion.
Thanks
lateapex911
03-01-2006, 08:02 PM
jeeez. talk about being put on the spot....;)
Is there further testing to be done? Last I heard, yes.
Do I believe in SIR technology? Yes.
Good thing you phrased your question that way...;)
jeeez. talk about being put on the spot....;)
Is there further testing to be done? Last I heard, yes.
Do I believe in SIR technology? Yes.
Good thing you phrased your question that way...;)
[/b]
I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I wanted honest answers to some honest questions, and you were a person close to the action.
Thanks
DoubleD
03-02-2006, 04:57 PM
:015:
Funny, Ron is actually hoding the ITAC responsible in the post you quoted.
The ITAC makes NO decisions. We recommend. The CRB has indeed relied on us more in recent years to determine overall category direction, but the CRB and BoD are the decision and policy makers. The implementation of the FPR in 2005 was a CRB move (not introduced by the ITAC), and the SIR was an OPTION, not the primary recommendation in 2006. As a point of fact, the 'restrictor plate' language in the PCA clause in the ITCS was inserted (and developed) by the CRB, not the ITAC.
I for one, am tired of taking misdirected pot-shots from the ill-informed on this topic. We put ourselves out here to help people understand, debate, and relay ideas and opinions. No problem answering the hard questions with people who disagree, but write your letter if you have an opinion.
Can't quite remember any from a "DoubleD". :rolleyes:
AB
Ron,
If I felt like the CRB didn't care, or was uninterested in Improved Touring, I wouldn't be volunteering my time on the ITAC.
AB
[/b]
My response to you is your own words...
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
[/b]
It's time to stand up, Andy.
Andy Bettencourt
03-02-2006, 05:20 PM
It's time to stand up, Andy. [/b]
Edit: Not worth it.
Joe Harlan
03-02-2006, 05:29 PM
My response to you is your own words...
It's time to stand up, Andy.
[/b]
Stand up to what Dave? More abuse? If I was any of those guys I would just shut up and wait for the CRB to decide what they are doing? Why would anyone want to subject themselves to the crap these guys have is beyond me. There was not a single one of you guys worried about the cars you were running off with your under prepped and marginally driven overdogs in the past. I for one know that these guys are trying too hard to not over adjust here to protect the investments of these cars. I personally would have shot lower and adjusted up over a couple of seasons so be glad it was not me making the recommendations. GO build your car with the confidence that this group is being fair and if they target ends up low this group will be the first to start screaming including me.
Andy or any other ITAC member has nothing left to justify to you or anyone else so get off it.
It amazes me that there are like 30 other things really positive going on in IT and they are being completely overlooked.
It's been beat to death your gonna have to wait like the rest of us for the official response.
mlytle
03-02-2006, 06:32 PM
There was not a single one of you guys worried about the cars you were running off with your under prepped and marginally driven overdogs in the past. [/b]
so now all bmw drivers suck and bring junk to the track to run everyone else off with? wtf? come on joe, that was uncalled for. :018:
how about we revert this thread back to the original topic. sir results. instead of the page after page of bmw bashing, crb/itab bashing and process arguments it has degenerated into. those are the topics of endless other threads. :dead_horse:
don't care what anyone thinks of the itac or crb
don't care if you feel there should be 300lbs of lead and be done with it
don't care if you think bmw drivers are whiners
do care about seeing the official results and assumptions of the sir testing. so far all i have seen elsewhere is large hp losses, way below the crb target for 27mm sir.
dickita15
03-02-2006, 06:47 PM
so now all bmw drivers suck and bring junk to the track to run everyone else off with? wtf? come on joe, that was uncalled for. :018:
[/b]
now I am sure you don't really think Joe was saying that, It would be refreshing howerver if when the "few" whiney guys carry on if some of the bmw drivers who get it would tell them to back off.
they complained about the short lead time. it was extended
they complained that there was not full testing. it is being tested
now they complain that the testing is taking to long.
Joe Harlan
03-02-2006, 07:03 PM
now I am sure you don't really think Joe was saying that, It would be refreshing howerver if when the "few" whiney guys carry on if some of the bmw drivers who get it would tell them to back off.
they complained about the short lead time. it was extended
they complained that there was not full testing. it is being tested
now they complain that the testing is taking to long.
[/b]
Wow, this is hard to be PC....To a certain extent that's exactly what I was saying but i don't mean it as harsh as Mlytle makes it sound.
When the E36 showed up we knew it was gonna be a class killer. 30+ years of development on the Z car flushed with one classification. The Z car is maxed out ain't gonna get any faster. My comments are more about the car that shows up completely under developed and beats a well developed car and does it on toyo's to boot is just wrong. Then put a decent built car with a driver that can't find an apex to save his/her butt and it still beats a well prepped and driven 240z you get the same result.(frustrated drivers) Add to that a well driven well prepped car on good tires and you have the recipe to kill a class.
I understand the frustration but I don't understand the abuse on the guys that have worked hard to create fix that will in the end make the class healthy for all and in the end will be the most cost effective for those using it. I know that you all think your gonna develop around it but your not. I estimated that 300lbs over 10 races will run you an extra 6000 bucks in tires brakes wear and tear on the car. To me looking at the big picture if I spent a grand to make the SIR work it would be a 5k savings over weight in the first season alone.
PS I know the 240 can't last forever it is just an example I have 100's of hours of development in.
Wow, this is hard to be PC....To a certain extent that's exactly what I was saying but i don't mean it as harsh as Mlytle makes it sound.
Joe, chill out I would expect a little more class from you. :D
My comments are more about the car that shows up completely under developed and beats a well developed car and does it on toyo's to boot is just wrong. Then put a decent built car with a driver that can't find an apex to save his/her butt and it still beats a well prepped and driven 240z you get the same result.(frustrated drivers) Add to that a well driven well prepped car on good tires and you have the recipe to kill a class.
Joe, that's not saying to much about the 240 driver if this actually happened. Could you be exaggurating a bit? I've seen good Z drivers and there is no way a poor to mediocare driver will win, unless it's a drag race.
I understand the frustration but I don't understand the abuse on the guys that have worked hard to create fix that will in the end make the class healthy for all and in the end will be the most cost effective for those using it. I know that you all think your gonna develop around it but your not. I estimated that 300lbs over 10 races will run you an extra 6000 bucks in tires brakes wear and tear on the car. To me looking at the big picture if I spent a grand to make the SIR work it would be a 5k savings over weight in the first season alone.
Joe don't castrate all of us because of a few that may have radical views or posts. This is not fair. Your right about the weight Joe & the money, but I guarantee I wouldn't be spending it for events in SCCA. As for the big picture I bet if you calculate the time and materials that they have testing these SIR's to date it would be a hell of a lot more than 1K. Just bring back the RP, reduce the size if need be, don't allow any beveling of the spacer plate, for 100 bucks. :023:
Joe Harlan
03-02-2006, 08:23 PM
Wow, this is hard to be PC....To a certain extent that's exactly what I was saying but i don't mean it as harsh as Mlytle makes it sound.
Joe, chill out I would expect a little more class from you. :D
My comments are more about the car that shows up completely under developed and beats a well developed car and does it on toyo's to boot is just wrong. Then put a decent built car with a driver that can't find an apex to save his/her butt and it still beats a well prepped and driven 240z you get the same result.(frustrated drivers) Add to that a well driven well prepped car on good tires and you have the recipe to kill a class.
Joe, that's not saying to much about the 240 driver if this actually happened. Could you be exaggurating a bit? I've seen good Z drivers and there is no way a poor to mediocare driver will win, unless it's a drag race.
I understand the frustration but I don't understand the abuse on the guys that have worked hard to create fix that will in the end make the class healthy for all and in the end will be the most cost effective for those using it. I know that you all think your gonna develop around it but your not. I estimated that 300lbs over 10 races will run you an extra 6000 bucks in tires brakes wear and tear on the car. To me looking at the big picture if I spent a grand to make the SIR work it would be a 5k savings over weight in the first season alone.
Joe don't castrate all of us because of a few that may have radical views or posts. This is not fair. Your right about the weight Joe & the money, but I guarantee I wouldn't be spending it for events in SCCA. As for the big picture I bet if you calculate the time and materials that they have testing these SIR's to date it would be a hell of a lot more than 1K. Just bring back the RP, reduce the size if need be, don't allow any beveling of the spacer plate, for 100 bucks. :023:
[/b]
DJ we are gonna have to teach you how to use the quote feature cause that was hard to read.
You don't race out here on the northern west coast....it's all about HP dude. Once you loose the drag race you have to do some scary stuff to get back around. There was no talking out of school here. I built and dynoed the engines in the 3 cars we are talking about. My numbers will compare to any real numbers on the market. My engines in these cars have set Track records and the 3 drivers we are talking are all recognized as top level. The things I have said I have actually witnessed.
The flat plate is worthless and even if it weren't being cheated it not the right way to make this system work.
I don't mean to brand all Bimmer guys with a broad brush because Ihave actually spent time on the phone with a lot of them that are doing their best to make this work and get back to racing. it just gets frustrating that some richard craniums want to make it personal with a group of guys that are working their coloective asses off to work this deal out. So chill? I don't think so. B)
PS DJ, it is not classless to have the sack to speak the truth when the truth is warranted.
zracre
03-02-2006, 09:20 PM
I hate to pop into this, but it seems abnormally long for something that needs to be implemented in less than a month...If it takes this long for the SCCA to fine tune and figure out the SIR on the BMW, how long will it take the guy that does this on weekends and a budget?? I think egos should be pushed aside, some weight added (3050) with or w/o FPR and leave the SIR for the end of 2006 for 1/1/07. It would take alot of stress away from an already scetchy year for many of the affected drivers. I'm sure the SIR will work but it is painfully obvious (giant purple elephant sitting in the room) that it needs to be tested for proper results. I'm sure the time would help SCCA get a better idea of the how's and what if's of making it work in a manner that can be implemented by the average club racer. Just a concerned member looking out for the best of the club.
Joe Harlan
03-02-2006, 09:29 PM
I hate to pop into this, but it seems abnormally long for something that needs to be implemented in less than a month...If it takes this long for the SCCA to fine tune and figure out the SIR on the BMW, how long will it take the guy that does this on weekends and a budget?? I think egos should be pushed aside, some weight added (3050) with or w/o FPR and leave the SIR for the end of 2006 for 1/1/07. It would take alot of stress away from an already scetchy year for many of the affected drivers. I'm sure the SIR will work but it is painfully obvious (giant purple elephant sitting in the room) that it needs to be tested for proper results. I'm sure the time would help SCCA get a better idea of the how's and what if's of making it work in a manner that can be implemented by the average club racer. Just a concerned member looking out for the best of the club.
[/b]
Evan, there are regions tht race year round, Why would that be any better? The reality is I think the testing is being done to passify(sp?) a group of people because I think this thing is sized pretty correct based on the math I have seen. It would not matter when the rule is set for people will wait till the last second and threaten to take a walk when that deadline comes. Sometimes you jusrt have to hit hte ball and see where it lands.
DJ we are gonna have to teach you how to use the quote feature cause that was hard to read.
You don't race out here on the northern west coast....it's all about HP dude. Once you loose the drag race you have to do some scary stuff to get back around. There was no talking out of school here. I built and dynoed the engines in the 3 cars we are talking about. My numbers will compare to any real numbers on the market. My engines in these cars have set Track records and the 3 drivers we are talking are all recognized as top level. The things I have said I have actually witnessed.
The flat plate is worthless and even if it weren't being cheated it not the right way to make this system work.
I don't mean to brand all Bimmer guys with a broad brush because Ihave actually spent time on the phone with a lot of them that are doing their best to make this work and get back to racing. it just gets frustrating that some richard craniums want to make it personal with a group of guys that are working their coloective asses off to work this deal out. So chill? I don't think so. B)
PS DJ, it is not classless to have the sack to speak the truth when the truth is warranted.
[/b]
Sorry Joe, I was in a hurry.
A FP restrictor tested on a Mustang Dyno killed 4 hp. That's a fact! So they are not entirely useless.
Your going to have a corinary bitching at a couple of people.:) What ever, just please don't generalize.
What you said that Mlytle responed to, was uncalled for.
Joe if you got beat by a mediocre driver in a BMW, my friend, I think that BMW was cheating big time! Probably a 2.8L with illegal cam timing and cams. :D
I just wished the CRB would have planned ahead, it could saved everyone a lot of problems. What is done is done. Nothing to do but wait.
Andy Bettencourt
03-02-2006, 10:32 PM
I hate to pop into this, but it seems abnormally long for something that needs to be implemented in less than a month...If it takes this long for the SCCA to fine tune and figure out the SIR on the BMW, how long will it take the guy that does this on weekends and a budget?? I think egos should be pushed aside, some weight added (3050) with or w/o FPR and leave the SIR for the end of 2006 for 1/1/07. It would take alot of stress away from an already scetchy year for many of the affected drivers. I'm sure the SIR will work but it is painfully obvious (giant purple elephant sitting in the room) that it needs to be tested for proper results. I'm sure the time would help SCCA get a better idea of the how's and what if's of making it work in a manner that can be implemented by the average club racer. Just a concerned member looking out for the best of the club. [/b]
Ev,
It's not that the testers are trying to figure out how to make the thing work, it's finding cars, guys and time to do this (usually on a weekend) basic testing. Also, in order to be able to properly graph what effect each size SIR has on power, we had to have sizes made that have never been mass produced yet. 5 sizes have been tested in order to get the full picture.
This isn't about ego's, it's about getting this right, SIR or not, for everyone in ITS.
AB
erlrich
03-02-2006, 11:36 PM
I hate to pop into this, but it seems abnormally long for something that needs to be implemented in less than a month...If it takes this long for the SCCA to fine tune and figure out the SIR on the BMW, how long will it take the guy that does this on weekends and a budget?? I think egos should be pushed aside, some weight added (3050) with or w/o FPR and leave the SIR for the end of 2006 for 1/1/07. It would take alot of stress away from an already scetchy year for many of the affected drivers. I'm sure the SIR will work but it is painfully obvious (giant purple elephant sitting in the room) that it needs to be tested for proper results. I'm sure the time would help SCCA get a better idea of the how's and what if's of making it work in a manner that can be implemented by the average club racer. Just a concerned member looking out for the best of the club.
[/b]
As a totally neutral (well, save for the fact that I'm as sick as everyone else of the whining) observer, I have to completely agree with Evan on this one. Unless the CRB plans on handing the BMW guys a 100% complete, bolt-on package that has been shown to work flawlessly I think it is unfair to expect them to have the SIRs installed and ready to go in less than a month. In my opinion 3 months would be more reasonable, and even then only after the proper size has been determined via thorough testing. I understand the desire to get this deal done before many of the regions start up their 2006 seasons, but I think rushing this through is only going to hurt the cause. JMHO
seckerich
03-03-2006, 12:02 AM
With all due respect to the time lines given--Was it really a surprise that the Bimmer was going to see a change. The rest of the class has had to put up with the futile (I believe -4HP was just confirmed?) attempts up to this point to achieve some parity in ITS. It has been a long slow process of rule changes to allow any adjustments at all. Then another year of the bogus flat plate restrictor. Now you want the rest of us to spend another year so that we don't make the BMW spend time and money?? If this had been fixed with "errors and omissions" when the car was classed we would not be here. Last I heard it sounds like the ITAC is doing all your homework right now and you can bet the "Coolaid Makers" will have a bolt on ready to go when it hits. Sure only took about a week to make the flat plate useless. Give it a rest guys--it will all be clear soon.
zchris
03-03-2006, 01:00 AM
I guess I am still having a hard time with the 325 being such an overdog. I was just looking up AB post on lap records and Nick leverone has the record in an RX7 at NHIS in both configuraations, Lime Rock, Pocono and Watkins Glen. As we all know a cars performance is not just HP. Its also Aerodynamics and weight distribution and many other factors. So with the RX7 so dominant, how can anyone say the breadbox bimmer is an overdog to the rx7 aero sports car that wins. Its not like the bimmer isn't run in the northeast. And I admit I am a little uneasy that AB has not abstained from any of the bimmer discussions as he is from the Mazda RX7 camp. Shame on you Andy. Anyway, 300 lbs seams rediculous for a car that only wins its fair share of events. Not even Auberline in WC had that much weight put on him for repeated wins. Just my opinion. Chris Howard
seckerich
03-03-2006, 01:11 AM
I guess I am still having a hard time with the 325 being such an overdog. I was just looking up AB post on lap records and Nick leverone has the record in an RX7 at NHIS in both configuraations, Lime Rock, Pocono and Watkins Glen. As we all know a cars performance is not just HP. Its also Aerodynamics and weight distribution and many other factors. So with the RX7 so dominant, how can anyone say the breadbox bimmer is an overdog to the rx7 aero sports car that wins. Its not like the bimmer isn't run in the northeast. And I admit I am a little uneasy that AB has not abstained from any of the bimmer discussions as he is from the Mazda RX7 camp. Shame on you Andy. Anyway, 300 lbs seams rediculous for a car that only wins its fair share of events. Not even Auberline in WC had that much weight put on him for repeated wins. Just my opinion. Chris Howard
[/b]
So I guess you have run both cars and have something to base your decision on? The comment about Andy is too low to even comment on.
zracre
03-03-2006, 01:13 AM
Steve, with all due respect, If they made you put on a SIR on your RX7 and gave you to the end of this month to have it done with no testing, wouldn't you feel a little screwed?? I race an Integra in ITA and now an ITS integra...if these limitations were put on me with a small time frame and undeveloped and untested (thoroughly) sizes that are not even available to the public or known(??!!) I would be really mad!! They slapped 115# on me and I had weeks to gather it and make it work (florida here....races all winter!) but that was easy...the circumstances are significantly different for this. If the BMW gets to race until the end of the year with maybe more lead, then what is it to you as a member? You get to race as normal...
The bottom line is everyone has the best intentions, and a small group is getting short ended and it needs to be adressed before it has worse implications to the club in general. It is easily fixed and its painfully obvious that something needs to be done besides wait for results with weeks and days left not months.
seckerich
03-03-2006, 01:18 AM
Simple--Give it the lead. Can be done in one night!! It is the BMW owners that want the lesser of two evils. But it is long past time to do something. And welcome to ITS with the new car. We had some great races with a certain black beast from Florida. Where is Seck??
Ron Earp
03-03-2006, 08:05 AM
I guess I am still having a hard time with the 325 being such an overdog. I was just looking up AB post on lap records and Nick leverone has the record in an RX7 at NHIS
[/b]
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.
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.
The first step of re-classing the car, done two (?) years ago at 2850 is one mistake that leads to the big hoopla. If the car had been running around at 3000lbs, or whatever, and then needed a 150lb weight adjustment people would have just done it and we wouldn't be discussing SIRs and all the other stuff.
R
Bill Miller
03-03-2006, 08:54 AM
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. [/b]
And it simply amazes me that some people can say that this isn't preferential treatment. Face it guys, the honeymoon of the "wink-wink uh, 2850#, yeah that's it! wink-wink" is over. Scream, thump your chest, threaten to leave all you want. From an outsider's perspective, it doesn't paint you folks in all that flattering a light.
And it simply amazes me that some people can say that this isn't preferential treatment. Face it guys, the honeymoon of the "wink-wink uh, 2850#, yeah that's it! wink-wink" is over. Scream, thump your chest, threaten to leave all you want. From an outsider's perspective, it doesn't paint you folks in all that flattering a light.
[/b]
Yea Bill, I really feel perfered.LOL Registration for the 1st race for me is up already and I don't know if, how or what I might be racing. Would you register if you were me? I never believed in getting ready for anything at the last moment and this is a good examplewhy you don't.
Oh Bill, your entire comment has what to do with Testing of the SIR's? ;)
Andy Bettencourt
03-03-2006, 09:41 AM
I guess I am still having a hard time with the 325 being such an overdog. I was just looking up AB post on lap records and Nick leverone has the record in an RX7 at NHIS in both configuraations, Lime Rock, Pocono and Watkins Glen. As we all know a cars performance is not just HP. Its also Aerodynamics and weight distribution and many other factors. So with the RX7 so dominant, how can anyone say the breadbox bimmer is an overdog to the rx7 aero sports car that wins. Its not like the bimmer isn't run in the northeast. And I admit I am a little uneasy that AB has not abstained from any of the bimmer discussions as he is from the Mazda RX7 camp. Shame on you Andy. Anyway, 300 lbs seams rediculous for a car that only wins its fair share of events. Not even Auberline in WC had that much weight put on him for repeated wins. Just my opinion. Chris Howard [/b]
Chris,
I expected more from you. Name for me the top prep Bimmers that run at those tracks....I hear crickets. I can't comment on this board on any topic related to ITS? HA! As a matter of fact, most of what I have tried to do is inform people of what info comes from where and how it could be applied. I would love to see this site if none of the ITAC ever posted.
Regional race results mean nothing. Is every car that holds a track record DOMINANT? Of course NOT. This whole issue is over the classification of a car WAY TO LIGHT for it's performance potential. A guy like you who sees the entire GT landscape every day out to know that there is a forrest outside of those trees.
I love the WC reference. If Auberlin's car was 250lb's LIGHTER than is should have been before he got any REWARDS weight, you think it would send him to the back of the pack? NOPE, it would have brought him right back to where he belonged - a legitimate challenger for any win. All the complaints assume that 2850 is the right weight...and it is NOT.
Shame on anyone for not understanding the issues before placing blame.
AB
zchris
03-03-2006, 09:45 AM
Steve, my comments are made based on observation from a totally unbiased point of view. I have no BMW or RX7, and as such can look objectively at what is happening. You on the other hand, obviously have an enormous chip on your shoulders about it. I am not saying that I have the Holy Grail of answers. I just don't see the huge overall performance disparity that is claimed. And as I said, just my opinion. The part about AB, if you don't understand the concept of Conflict of Interest, well what can I say. I would not like to be accused of murder only to find out the jury were the victims family members and looking for revenge.
Bill Miller
03-03-2006, 09:46 AM
Yea Bill, I really feel perfered.LOL Registration for the 1st race for me is up already and I don't know if, how or what I might be racing. Would you register if you were me? I never believed in getting ready for anything at the last moment and this is a good examplewhy you don't.
Oh Bill, your entire comment has what to do with Testing of the SIR's? ;)
[/b]
Pretty simple dj, since the SIR implementation got pushed back, you race under what's in the '06 ITCS (BTW, did anybody notice that the weight on the car is 2750#??? :119: )
And would I register? Sure, all it takes is a fax or phone call a few days before the weekend if you're not going.
Andy Bettencourt
03-03-2006, 09:59 AM
Yea Bill, I really feel perfered.LOL Registration for the 1st race for me is up already and I don't know if, how or what I might be racing. Would you register if you were me? I never believed in getting ready for anything at the last moment and this is a good examplewhy you don't.
[/b]
DJ,
Run your race in 2005 prep. Have fun and worry about a change when one comes down. I hope you realize that the CRB is made up of some racers and will try and make it as easy as POSSIBLE to get this done.
Have you sent in a letter with your thoughts?
AB
Steve, my comments are made based on observation from a totally unbiased point of view. I have no BMW or RX7, and as such can look objectively at what is happening. You on the other hand, obviously have an enormous chip on your shoulders about it. I am not saying that I have the Holy Grail of answers. I just don't see the huge overall performance disparity that is claimed. And as I said, just my opinion. The part about AB, if you don't understand the concept of Conflict of Interest, well what can I say. I would not like to be accused of murder only to find out the jury were the victims family members and looking for revenge. [/b]
Chris, inform us what is going on outside NER. Inform us what is going on in the Regions where a BMW has won every race for the last 4 years straight. Inform us what has happend when top Bimmer's run against top ANYTHING (and the 2005 ARRC has been beaten to death - many observers can and will tell you why the race was sort-of close)
If you don't take the time to understand the facts and issues inside your own fishbowl, then how could you possible know what is going on out in the ocean?
As far as I am concerned, read up on how the committies work. Been written a dozen times. Also, you know me personally and we do some business...I am thrilled to know you think this situation is analagous to your 'jury' example. That's a personal shot and I am taking it as such.
AB
benspeed
03-03-2006, 10:17 AM
Some of these potshots at Andy have taken an all new low on this site. Andy's a standup guy looking to do the right thing for the club and the ITS class.
All I can say is that it shows real character on his part not to get suckered into making similar low brow remarks.
its66
03-03-2006, 10:20 AM
Steve, my comments are made based on observation from a totally unbiased point of view. I have no BMW or RX7, and as such can look objectively at what is happening. You on the other hand, obviously have an enormous chip on your shoulders about it. I am not saying that I have the Holy Grail of answers. I just don't see the huge overall performance disparity that is claimed. And as I said, just my opinion. The part about AB, if you don't understand the concept of Conflict of Interest, well what can I say. I would not like to be accused of murder only to find out the jury were the victims family members and looking for revenge.
[/b]
Would you rather have the ITAC made up of Spec Miata racers, or Vintage guys? AB is apart of the ITAC, he is only one member. I prefer to have the CRB advised by IT racers on matters concerning Improved Touring. Could someone abuse this and make a recommendation which is preferential? Certainly. That is part of why the ITAC makes recommendations instead of rules. Think of AB not as the jury, but more of a witness.
Steve doesn't appear to have a chip on his shoulders about the BMW. He seems to be more frustrated by the comments made on this forum. (as many are).
*disclaimer* I used to race a 240, now I race a Mazda, and drive a bmw daily. I wonder if I am biased also.
benspeed
03-03-2006, 10:30 AM
*disclaimer* I used to race a 240, now I race a Mazda, and drive a bmw daily. I wonder if I am biased also.
[/b]
Some on this board might think that disqualifies you from having an opinion without an agenda. :(
erlrich
03-03-2006, 10:40 AM
Steve, my comments are made based on observation from a totally unbiased point of view. I have no BMW or RX7, and as such can look objectively at what is happening. You on the other hand, obviously have an enormous chip on your shoulders about it. I am not saying that I have the Holy Grail of answers. I just don't see the huge overall performance disparity that is claimed. And as I said, just my opinion. The part about AB, if you don't understand the concept of Conflict of Interest, well what can I say. I would not like to be accused of murder only to find out the jury were the victims family members and looking for revenge.
[/b]
Ok, from another totally unbiased point of view; as someone who worked F&C at SP for a few races in 2004 I can guess you never got the chance to watch Ed York and Sam Asinugo have their own private little races while lapping half the field and pulling out to 30+ second margins in 16 lap races. And Ed still holds the SP record at 1:24.8 while the best non-BMW time I've been able to find for that track is in the 1:26+ range. If that's not a performance disparity I don't know what is.
Oh, and what, you would rather the ITAC be made up of a bunch of non-racers? After all the bitching that has been done on these boards about the BMW, you guys think Andy is trying to persue some personal vendetta? Grow up.
DJ,
Run your race in 2005 prep. Have fun and worry about a change when one comes down. I hope you realize that the CRB is made up of some racers and will try and make it as easy as POSSIBLE to get this done.
Have you sent in a letter with your thoughts?
AB
[/b]
AB,
I do know that the CRB has been very helpful with any question I had, since I was new to ITS last year. They were easy to contact and were direct with their answers. On a 1 to 10 scale I would give them a 10 (meaning excellent). I do believe that they or someone droped the ball on the sir issue. I also have been alive long enough to know shit happens. All we want now, is something that we know will work. :eclipsee_steering:
Do you think I could type anything that hasn't already been typed without being redundent?
Andy Bettencourt
03-03-2006, 12:01 PM
AB,
I do know that the CRB has been very helpful with any question I had, since I was new to ITS last year. They were easy to contact and were direct with their answers. On a 1 to 10 scale I would give them a 10 (meaning excellent). I do believe that they or someone droped the ball on the sir issue. I also have been alive long enough to know shit happens. All we want now, is something that we know will work. :eclipsee_steering:
Do you think I could type anything that hasn't already been typed without being redundent?
[/b]
Absolutely. Write in on your thoughts about the whole issue. SIR's, weight, timeframe, your personal prep program - really anything you want. Your goal should be to try and make the CRB understand your position as a racer and what you think is fair.
seckerich
03-03-2006, 01:41 PM
Steve, my comments are made based on observation from a totally unbiased point of view. I have no BMW or RX7, and as such can look objectively at what is happening. You on the other hand, obviously have an enormous chip on your shoulders about it. I am not saying that I have the Holy Grail of answers. I just don't see the huge overall performance disparity that is claimed. And as I said, just my opinion. The part about AB, if you don't understand the concept of Conflict of Interest, well what can I say. I would not like to be accused of murder only to find out the jury were the victims family members and looking for revenge.
[/b]
This from someone who has no "chip" about the SIR and wants to swim into this discussion with from GTL?? I have seen your unbiased opinions other places.
mlytle
03-03-2006, 03:24 PM
Ok, from another totally unbiased point of view; as someone who worked F&C at SP for a few races in 2004 I can guess you never got the chance to watch Ed York and Sam Asinugo have their own private little races while lapping half the field and pulling out to 30+ second margins in 16 lap races. And Ed still holds the SP record at 1:24.8 while the best non-BMW time I've been able to find for that track is in the 1:26+ range. If that's not a performance disparity I don't know what is.
[/b]
well, as someone who has been actively racing the marrs series at summit point for 4 years...
ed york is a big fish in a little pond. you are talking about one of the top drivers and best prepared its cars in the country.
there have been other non-bmw its cars in the 1:25's at summit, most recently an acura.
ed york was also a regular at watkins glen, where an rx7 hold the track record.
ahh, but now i too have succumbed to the off topic drivel that this thread has become. maybe i will start a new thread "sir v.2" in the hope that just sir test results discussions go on there... :lol:
lateapex911
03-03-2006, 03:25 PM
Chris, I am surprised at your comments, esp as I was under the impression that you did a lot of FlatOuts (Andy and Nick and the boys') cge work, and have been highly praised by them. So for you to call Andy out like that must mean that you are really upset with his involvement, and his conflicts, either real or imagined.
So a brief explanation of the system, for the millionth time) might be in order.
First, the CRB is made up of members form different categories and regions. This is to minimize any chance of partiality to any particular issue.
Second the ITAC is comprised similarly, and carries no actual rule making capabilities, it merely suggests concepts, specifics, and direction. because it is involved in the actual category, it can see issues others miss. This level of understanding is important. The CRB does take part in the conversations in order to streamline the process, and help guide things expediently, but the two parts perform different functions.
Third, Andy is ONE guy...out of nine, on the ITAC, and as such has limited impact. (Sorry Andy).
Fourth, his "ball" in this game is actually very minimal. I don't hear the ITA guys shreiking "Conflict of interest" when they got their weight handed to them...and it would make more sense there because THAT's where Andy races! And as for Nick, well, he's gone Pro so we won't see him much. Sure FlatOut will take care of certain Mazdas in ITS, but trust me, it is NOT in their best interest to have a car the needs no development, as an RX-7 would if the E36 were to be reduced to an also ran as you are suggesting, as nobody will spend lots of money trying to win by greater margins! It's in the tuners best financial interest for the RX-7 to have competition! And that's assuming that Andy was operating for personal gains.
Fifth, my opinion...Andy may be vocal, and certainly doesn't shy away from involvement, but I have never seen him behave in anything but a proper manner. He makes his ponts, and they are always backed up with reasonable facts.
Finally, you really need to look at the math and not focus on certain results...the guys in the rest of the country, I am sure, are insulted when they read that one car is the "dominant car" becuase it does well locally. And how is it explained that it is off the pace when it travels south?
Jake, if we can talk about SIR data, just for a moment. ;) I would like your opinion again......now this is purely hypothetical and multiple choise :D
If someone was ever going to post any kind of Dyno and/or SIR data, it would be,
A. within 1 week
B. 1 to 2 weeks
C. Sometime in April but before the 4th of July
D. NOT IN YOUR LIFE TIME SPUNKY! :119:
Thanks
dj
:eclipsee_steering:
lateapex911
03-03-2006, 06:47 PM
Well, I don't want to fall into the trap of making predictions over things I have no control of...so..........
A- I hope so, but am not sure..
B- I hope so, and would think more likely than A.
C-Doubtful...
D-No, information will be posted, in this lifetime!
FYI, you missed the window between 3/20 and 4/1.
Listen, I feel the pressure, and I want to have a solid answer, and feel good about it, as soon as possible. But it's pretty much out of my hands and higher powers have to make their call.
I honestly don't know what the final word is, and before you ask, ;) I wouldn't even make a bet with myself over the outcome...except that I hope it ticks each party off equally, LOL
I know I might have come off a bit pissed in the last post, but I do appreciate the patience displayed by you guys. Well, most of you. ;) I, (we) can take criticism over how this has gone down, but when I start to have accusations thrown my way, I have to draw the line.
erlrich
03-03-2006, 06:55 PM
ahh, but now i too have succumbed to the off topic drivel that this thread has become.[/b]
Marshall, you're much wiser than I, you realized you had been sucked in before you ever hit the "post" button, whereas my epiphany came much later :(
maybe i will start a new thread "sir v.2" in the hope that just sir test results discussions go on there... :lol:
[/b]
If you do, I've got $50 on the drivelers :D
Well, I don't want to fall into the trap of making predictions over things I have no control of...so..........
A- I hope so, but am not sure..
B- I hope so, and would think more likely than A.
C-Doubtful...
D-No, information will be posted, in this lifetime!
FYI, you missed the window between 3/20 and 4/1.
[/b]
Yea I did. Ok 3/20 & 4/1 will be C. hehe
This for your opinion ONLY. I promise you won't get burnt at the stake like they use to do up there. :D
Knestis
03-03-2006, 10:22 PM
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't feel cheated.
K
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't feel cheated.
K
[/b]
K, 1st of all we need a HP # somewhere near 180 to 195 rwhp. This is just a range and will depend what kind of dyno we are required to use. I beleive the testing should all be completed on one type of dyno to maintain quality control. So the HP number will be some what flexible. We need to know exactly where the SIR is installed to make max hp & torque. I heard it will be best placed from the air filter. We also need to know that the SIR will not kill our upper RPM HP range, which is at or near 6500 to 6800 rpm. We can be shifting at 5500 because the air has hit supersonic at that low of a rpm.
If everything is as advertised, I believe only the top 10% of the BMW's will be effected, easy to say if your not the top 10%. :( In other words the SIR has to perform as advertised. I'm sure you wouldn't want your whole race season shoot in the ass, chasing your tail.
I do believe that if it works again as advertised, we should and could still win our fair share of races other that maybe a few non SIR motec cars.
Is it a lot? Is anything I've said here anything more than almost all racers already have? I'll let you guys decide.
zchris
03-04-2006, 06:36 PM
I just wanted write about my comments in relation to Andy B. I in no way think he is out to get the BMW crowd or is dishonest in any way. My comment was only to say that anyone who is helping to write rules or policy should remove themselves when the particular policy has been so close to them. We are all just human and as such may make a desicion based on a biased feeling about the current rules. Andy has always been an upstanding person in my eye. As I build roll cages it would be just wrong for me to be included in a rules process that was to shape the future of how roll cages are built. I'm to close to the issue and would have a biased opinion on the subject. Sorry AB.
Joe Harlan
03-04-2006, 06:51 PM
I just wanted write about my comments in relation to Andy B. I in no way think he is out to get the BMW crowd or is dishonest in any way. My comment was only to say that anyone who is helping to write rules or policy should remove themselves when the particular policy has been so close to them. We are all just human and as such may make a desicion based on a biased feeling about the current rules. Andy has always been an upstanding person in my eye. As I build roll cages it would be just wrong for me to be included in a rules process that was to shape the future of how roll cages are built. I'm to close to the issue and would have a biased opinion on the subject. Sorry AB.
[/b]
Chris, I have never seen your cage work. i have been told good things about it. I feel you are wrong that you shouldn't be included in the writing of those kinds of safety issues, One of the reasons things get screwed is because the exact people that know what needs to be done never help with the process.
steve s
03-04-2006, 07:28 PM
good job dj in describing what i .and i would guess all bmw driver/tuners etc would wants from this experiment.
also i am sure this is taking so long is because all the volunteers are trying to be fair .take your time and do the right thing.just give us about 3 months to fully develop/ understand how this would affect the car so we can make the necessary adjustments.thank you. :happy204:
MikeBlaszczak
03-06-2006, 12:36 AM
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't feel cheated.
[/b]
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.
Andy Bettencourt
03-06-2006, 08:13 AM
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]
I think 'berating' is a strong word. Before complaining, I think it's prudent to do the research. Simple as that. I apologize if it came off like that.
The SIR technology is being proven/disproven as we speak. They have some great data. It may work out, it may not. Bottom line? The CRB is trying to keep the most ITS cars on track with the most fair decision. Fair to ALL in ITS. It is understandable the issues you have on the timing. We all would have the same issues but you have to understand you can run at 2005 specs for now and hope the CRB allows enough time for proper transition.
I do think, that you will find little sympathy from other racers (especially those in ITS) for your request to remain competitive at a 'modest' prep level. Every car that is classed has to run it's proper minimum weight - no matter the prep level. You are looking for a free pass...unfortunatley for those of us who can't prep to the max right now, the classification process HAS to be based on potential, or else you would have overdogs running around all over the place.
Thanks for answering, it's important the CRB understands your position. Seriously.
(On edit: If you feel strongly about your position, send it into the CRB. It only takes a day or so for it to get logged)
Bill Miller
03-06-2006, 10:49 AM
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.[/b]
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.
zchris
03-06-2006, 11:50 AM
OK, I need to finish the post I started with and did not complete. My reservations about there being a disparity between the bimmer and all others are based on the following. I run in GT2 with a 2280lb Nissan. I run against a Porsche GT3 Cup car at 2730. I ran this 05 with a stock 222hp engine. On the dyno, 204 RWHP. At Lime Rock we ran 57.3 and 57.7 respectively. He was faster. At LR you would expect us to be close. At Pocono 4 weeks later, as you would expect, he also was faster. But by a much larger margin as Pocono is basicly a double drag strip with an autocross course in the middle. He ran a 1.38.1 and I a 1.42.9. We went from .5 seconds apart to 4.8 seconds apart. Look at the numbers; 450 lbs - about 100 more RWHP - 4.8 seconds. Now the BMW 2850 - RX7 2680 are 170lbs apart. Say the BMW has 50 more HP. Do some extrapolation and the BMW should be about 3 seconds a lap faster than the RX7. But the RX7 has the lap record. Now I am assuming the same clockwise course configuration. A BMW with the driver sleeping should be able to best the RX7. Unless the other dynamic factors, such as air drag, rotational inertia about the about the mass centroid, ect... come into play. Now like I was saying, I do not see the smoking gun as others.
Chris Howard
Ron Earp
03-06-2006, 12:26 PM
Chris,
don't worry about a smoking gun or extrapolated track results.
Why can't the BMW race at the weight predicted by the ITS classing model as the other cars do?
All the other cars in ITS race at the calculated weight - witness the wholesale changes just handed down. The model put out 3150 or 3200 lbs for the BMW, so why would the BMW be expected to race at 2850 lbs?
Classing it incorrectly from the get go has resulted in this entire discussion.
Ron
zchris
03-06-2006, 12:39 PM
Ron, I was hoping without me saying it, you would pickup on the model not being safisticated enough to do the job we are asking. IT comprises cars that are so all over the map physically that a simple HP/Weight formula will hang many out to dry. But as I have no horse in this race, You guys can have at it. Happy racing boys.
Chris Howard
Ron Earp
03-06-2006, 12:49 PM
Chris, you can not definitely say that the model is flawed based on single observations. Particularly an observation not even involving IT cars, and then another one based on no knowledge of prep level etc.
I could just as easily point to AARC results that show the BMW to be a shoe in winning car with obervations of the front running BMW sandbagging to save tires, etc. But that would be pointless.
Use the model. Class the cars. Make adjustments when needed. This has not been done or applied to the BMW because it has never raced at the model predicted weight and was known to be light when classed at 29XX.
R
lateapex911
03-06-2006, 01:11 PM
Some good answers here. good to read them.
Mike, I think you are looking at things a bit skewed.
You just stated that you had a lot of fun racing your "modest prep" BMW against other guys and had a lot of fun. I'm sure you're not the only guy having fun in a modest prep car, but............you are in a small crowd, LOL.
Look at it this way. If things were fair, you would have been in a car that met process weight, and you would have had to prep the car just as your competition has to, to have had the same racing you had.
How would you feel if a guy came in under weight...and beat you?
So, you've had a few years having fun on a freebie....do you know how many other guys would kill for that? Be thankful for what you have.
So, some time in the sun, and not many have had that chance... I'd be thankful and accept the future.
(And yes, the timing sucks, and the CRB is well aware, and I hope and expect them to give fair notice of whatever choice they make, so just race what you have, and keep having fun.)
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,
Since I'm in the same boat to a certain extent I can relate. I guess there is really nothing I can say, except any which way, we are going to lose something. This is a fact, if it's weight, A flat Plate Restrictor (FPR) or the SIR we will lose something. I wished I could tell you something different but that would probably be a lie. Depending on the extent of your engine build you will lose, as a example 10% (actual numbers not known). So the well built with a motect should rein supreme among the BMW's (from what I've been told). The SIR is the best solution so far, again, from what I was told. There are certain things some low budget to help you, like a adjustable fuel regulator and someone to burn you a good chip on a dyno, a decent set of headers and good tires. I would prefer a mediocare engine with a good suspension instead of the other way around. Driving well is the best way to get around the track faster.
I plan to test with and without the SIR so I can have options on where I can race. If the SIR doesn't work I can race else where until the ITAC & CRB get this right. I'm trying to remain optimistic and hope this works as well as they say it is going to. I'm being as honest as I can. I know what you are going through but it doesn't make it any easier.
dj
Andy Bettencourt
03-06-2006, 08:45 PM
OK, I need to finish the post I started with and did not complete. My reservations about there being a disparity between the bimmer and all others are based on the following. I run in GT2 with a 2280lb Nissan. I run against a Porsche GT3 Cup car at 2730. I ran this 05 with a stock 222hp engine. On the dyno, 204 RWHP. At Lime Rock we ran 57.3 and 57.7 respectively. He was faster. At LR you would expect us to be close. At Pocono 4 weeks later, as you would expect, he also was faster. But by a much larger margin as Pocono is basicly a double drag strip with an autocross course in the middle. He ran a 1.38.1 and I a 1.42.9. We went from .5 seconds apart to 4.8 seconds apart. Look at the numbers; 450 lbs - about 100 more RWHP - 4.8 seconds. Now the BMW 2850 - RX7 2680 are 170lbs apart. Say the BMW has 50 more HP. Do some extrapolation and the BMW should be about 3 seconds a lap faster than the RX7. But the RX7 has the lap record. Now I am assuming the same clockwise course configuration. A BMW with the driver sleeping should be able to best the RX7. Unless the other dynamic factors, such as air drag, rotational inertia about the about the mass centroid, ect... come into play. Now like I was saying, I do not see the smoking gun as others.
Chris Howard [/b]
Chris,
The problem with your deductions is that you don't have all the information. On the weekend the record was set at Pocono - Kip VanSteenburg brought out his 944S for the 2nd time. Kip ran within .4 of the new record set that day, then has clutch problems and didn't run the next day. The RX-7 and the 944S were pretty dang equal considering the development work yet to be done on the Porsche...
The point? NO BMW's. From what I have seen (and this is a new track config - only 3 years old now) the BMW that BEAT this RX-7 at BOTH events in 2004 (and won the NARRC Championship that year) is at LEAST 15whp down on the top cars in the country. This is based on what is seen at RA vs. Pocono and the 8-10 car lengths they pull down south on the back side).
You have to know the facts in order to understand.
AB
Ron, I was hoping without me saying it, you would pickup on the model not being safisticated enough to do the job we are asking. IT comprises cars that are so all over the map physically that a simple HP/Weight formula will hang many out to dry.
Chris Howard [/b]
Chris,
As has been mentined on this site a bunch of times, there is no such 'simple' formula. The 'process' will never be perfect but it does take into account things like: aero, tranny ratios, suspension design, drivetrain layout, etc....and it is applied to all in the same manner.
robits325is
03-06-2006, 11:04 PM
Chris,
The point? NO BMW's. From what I have seen (and this is a new track config - only 3 years old now) the BMW that BEAT this RX-7 at BOTH events in 2004 (and won the NARRC Championship that year) is at LEAST 15whp down on the top cars in the country. This is based on what is seen at RA vs. Pocono and the 8-10 car lengths they pull down south on the back side).
You have to know the facts in order to understand.
AB
[/b]
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.
Andy Bettencourt
03-06-2006, 11:47 PM
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. [/b]
Chris does make valid points. The issue at hand is that the 'process' takes those into account as best as possible. So the comments, while valid, were made without the understanding of the current methods (which have been posted here many times) So far so good.
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?
seckerich
03-06-2006, 11:55 PM
We should make this a claimer class like in karting.
So you think you should be able to steal someone elses hard work and developement when you get beat? Welcome to the mentality of persecution. Do your own work and catch up.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.