The BMW E36 ITS Car Should......

[Ron Earp]

A simple poll, simple choices to see where the majority of the voting board lies.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Since you can't see the results if you don't vote, could sombody update us? Has anyone voted?

AB

[erlrich]

Since you can't see the results if you don't vote, could sombody update us? Has anyone voted?

AB
[/b]

As of now, 10 want it to eat lead while 8 voted to choke the living s#*t out of it :D

[Eagle7]

Since you can't see the results if you don't vote, could sombody update us? Has anyone voted?

AB
[/b]
Somebody doesn't like you? I can see them just fine.

[dickita15]

Andy,
tell mommy to turn off the V chip. :P

[RSTPerformance]

Since you can't see the results if you don't vote, could sombody update us? Has anyone voted?

AB
[/b]


Andy-

You should vote, then you can see the results!!! ;)

Raymond

[64oeg]

12-9 now. I had no problems viewing them. Andy, were you logged in?

George H

[1stGenBoy]

Since Andy knows my stance on this. Should I vote?
Bob

[Andy Bettencourt]

Maybe I wasn't logged in...pretty split.

[JohnRW]

The hair-pulling high-heel kicking fight has spilled back over from the BMW section. Mayday. Save us all. We thought we had it contained.

SIR's have no place in IT. Give the bitch 300lbs, and be done with it.

Drag whoever imported the SIR over from GT-land out into the back forty, and beat them without mercy.

Some cars are 'uber-dogs'. Some are 'goober-dogs'. Just get over it. No more lectures about 'investment'. Nobody 'invests' in race cars. Srsly.

[Geo]

Drag whoever imported the SIR over from GT-land out into the back forty, and beat them without mercy.

[/b]

We'll just have Ants tie 'em to the car, and drag them...... :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Starting to see some seperation...

[Joe Harlan]

Starting to see some seperation...
[/b]


Who cares? the rule is in place the size is the question...Why must we keep polling?

[JohnRW]

To quote Warren Buffett, business/investing genius and the 'Oracle of Omaha':

"Public opinion polling is not a substitute for thought."

But...we're now faced with having to screw around with sizes in SIR's, after they've already been implemented for IT cars.

So...since there was no polling or apparent thought before-hand, now that they're implemented and people are actually having to 'test' the concept of SIR's (the 'thought' part), it's appropriate to have some polling going on.

Totally ass-backwards, but appropriate.

[Joe Harlan]

To quote Warren Buffett, business/investing genius and the 'Oracle of Omaha':

"Public opinion polling is not a substitute for thought."

But...we're now faced with having to screw around with sizes in SIR's, after they've already been implemented for IT cars.

So...since there was no polling or apparent thought before-hand, now that they're implemented and people are actually having to 'test' the concept of SIR's (the 'thought' part), it's appropriate to have some polling going on.

Totally ass-backwards, but appropriate.
[/b]

John, I completely agree the process may not have been right but we are here now and the date has been set. Why dick around with giving some false hope that a poll may change something. The time left should be spent figuring out how to make it work.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This was a poll started by an individual not associated with the ITAC or CRB. I think Ron just wanted to know what people thought on this site. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Joe Harlan]

This was a poll started by an individual bit associated with the ITAC or CRB. I think Ron just wanted to know what people thought on this site. Nothing more, nothing less.
[/b]


The problem is this site not not necessarily reflect the feelings of the whole IT community. There are guys/girls out there trying to make a go of this rule and supporting them whould be far better than confusing them with a poll that is likely not to change the out come.

[JohnRW]

Andy -

My fear is that, without an appropriate amount of squawking, the CRB and the BOD will get the impression that implementing SIR's in IT is an acceptable idea, and it will quickly spread to other IT classes. IMO - "It isn't, and it shouldn't".

This has nothing to do with the technology, which probably works but obviously requires some diddling to get to 'parity'. Plain & simple: I have major philosophical problems with SIR's in IT. If somebody asks for an opinion, or conducts a poll, I'm going to squawk.

I don't believe that this is a 'settled' issue. At this point, it's pushed off in a dirty little corner of IT (BMW vs. ITS), but when the plague spreads, the villagers will be storming the castle with torches and pitchforks.

I've got my matches ready.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The problem is this site not not necessarily reflect the feelings of the whole IT community. There are guys/girls out there trying to make a go of this rule and supporting them whould be far better than confusing them with a poll that is likely not to change the out come.
[/b]

Joe,

You bolded what I wrote. I meant what I wrote. On this site. It was his poll, he can do with the info what he wants.


Andy -

My fear is that, without an appropriate amount of squawking, the CRB and the BOD will get the impression that implementing SIR's in IT is an acceptable idea, and it will quickly spread to other IT classes. IMO - "It isn't, and it shouldn't".

This has nothing to do with the technology, which probably works but obviously requires some diddling to get to 'parity'. Plain & simple: I have major philosophical problems with SIR's in IT. If somebody asks for an opinion, or conducts a poll, I'm going to squawk.

I don't believe that this is a 'settled' issue. At this point, it's pushed off in a dirty little corner of IT (BMW vs. ITS), but when the plague spreads, the villagers will be storming the castle with torches and pitchforks.

I've got my matches ready. [/b]

That decision is up to the CRB, write in and tell them you hate SIR's in IT.



AB

[lateapex911]

Andy -

......with torches and pitchforks.

I've got my matches ready.
[/b]
C'mon John, get with the technology! Use a lighter, it's faster and you can fire up more torches that way!

(this comment edited to reflect new edits above)

Sure, IT.com aint the whole picture, but it IS a viable part of the equation, and if 100% of the people here think all racecars should have horns, I bet the rest of the world would agree.

Again, it's just a poll to see what people think. Results will, of course, be taken with a grain of salt.

[Geo]

Andy -

My fear is that, without an appropriate amount of squawking, the CRB and the BOD will get the impression that implementing SIR's in IT is an acceptable idea, and it will quickly spread to other IT classes. IMO - "It isn't, and it shouldn't".

This has nothing to do with the technology, which probably works but obviously requires some diddling to get to 'parity'. Plain & simple: I have major philosophical problems with SIR's in IT. If somebody asks for an opinion, or conducts a poll, I'm going to squawk.

I don't believe that this is a 'settled' issue. At this point, it's pushed off in a dirty little corner of IT (BMW vs. ITS), but when the plague spreads, the villagers will be storming the castle with torches and pitchforks.

I've got my matches ready.
[/b]

John, please drop an e-mail:

[email protected]

I'm quite sure the Fastrack response will be "Thank you for your input" but that doesn't mean it's getting blown off. If there is a ground swell of sentiment one way or another on an issue, it most certainly gets discussed (at least within the ITAC if it applies to IT).

[Joe Harlan]

John, please drop an e-mail:

[email protected]

I'm quite sure the Fastrack response will be "Thank you for your input" but that doesn't mean it's getting blown off. If there is a ground swell of sentiment one way or another on an issue, it most certainly gets discussed (at least within the ITAC if it applies to IT).
[/b]
So we will force the CRB and the ITAC to waste a bunch more time on one freaking car.....That's the problem with the system of squeeky wheel....

[JohnRW]

So we will force the CRB and the ITAC to waste a bunch more time on one freaking car.....That's the problem with the system of squeely wheel....
[/b]

Our opinions differ as to the 'cause' and the 'result' of past actions. Let's leave it at that. As to the 'squeely' (sic) wheel...I don't feel guilty at all about questioning the wisdom of this move. They 'broke it', they can 'fix it', too. If the point of your post was 'you should just shut up and live with it', when did anyone put you in charge of this ? Must have missed that memo.

Off to the NEDiv Roundtable to bend some ears. Have a nice weekend.

[Bill Miller]

So we will force the CRB and the ITAC to waste a bunch more time on one freaking car.....That's the problem with the system of squeeky wheel....
[/b]

Who cares? the rule is in place the size is the question...Why must we keep polling?[/b]

So Joe, we should just take the CRB ramming something down people's throats that don't necessarily want it? F that!

As John said, SIRs have no place in IT at this time. They sure as hell souldn't be implemented this way. Special treatment for one car is BS, plain and simple. This things smells worse than my driver's suit at the end of the Labor Day double at Summit Point!!! :119: (can't find the puking smiley!)

[Joe Harlan]

So Joe, we should just take the CRB ramming something down people's throats that don't necessarily want it? F that!

As John said, SIRs have no place in IT at this time. They sure as hell souldn't be implemented this way. Special treatment for one car is BS, plain and simple. This things smells worse than my driver's suit at the end of the Labor Day double at Summit Point!!! :119: (can't find the puking smiley!)
[/b]
John, I am not in charge of it cause if I was it would be done and if you didn't like it still wouldn't change. My point is we have polled this about every way you can and we get the same result cause it is the same small group of people that participate in this site. The real issue is the rule has been passed and placed with a date you don't have to like it but polling it like its gonna change is just BS...Start a thread and bitch about it all you want say its a piece of crap blah,blah. But lets help the guys that have to be held to this rule deal with it and make it work....That's my point and nothing more. Nothing personal and nothing to gain from this other than good close racing and a car that fits the index of the class.

[pfcs]

I have avoided having an opinion about this. After reading this SIR stuff for a long time, it becomes clear to me that it is entirely inappropriate in IT and was dropped on the entire community like a bomb. Put weight in the damn things! If the club cares to invest the proper time and money into doing some scrupulous research and generating a proposal for member input, supported by well established DATA for implementation later, then I'd be open to considering it. The initial proposal for the SIR was seductive-took a while to get re-centerd!
ps: this in no way is a discount of what Jake, Andy, et al have tried to do with this hot potatoe. And yeah-I've had experience with a Clayton and don't consider them to be very useful.

[lateapex911]

Well, obviously some are tired of the same ole', same ole', and I can't say anything fresh and new, except that it is a MEMBER driven, (and really run by members as well), organization. The employess work for the members, and the ITAC has gotten some input on this. I have to say some of it has been very well written, well reasoned and helpful. Of course, some of it has been accusatory, and just inflammatory, as you might expect. (Although I was surprised at some of the requests, or more correctly, the "suggestions", LOL).

That said, more input on any issue, even if it, as Joe says, appears to be a "done deal"... I'm not trying to "give hope" as Joe points out, but I am encouraging input on any issue at any time, it's what the club,....YOUR club, runs on. This site is but a tip of the IT iceberg, so tell your non computer friends to write in as well.

Phil, your comment on the Clayton dyno interests me. As we all know, data analysis from dynos is a bit tricky, but at the same time most dynos can be very useful, when you can acheive consistant and repeatable and comparable numbers. What issues do you have with the Clayton, and what do you prefer, and why?

Just curious!

[pfcs]

my experience with 2 Claytons was lack of consistent results.
The larger issue is that I feel the club should underwrite a proffessional analysis at one well run cerifiably accurate dyno facility (wheel hub preffered-tires introduce a BIG varaible betrween cars) using several cars, with ongoing correction monitoring for each run (air checks)---wait-isn't this getting very complicated and unrealistic? I remember when IT started and some members were fuming that we were going to have junk car racing! What were (are) we thinking? KISS-"keep it simple, stupid!" (I don't mean you, Jake)

[lateapex911]

Intersting, thanks for weighing in Phil. (Will we be seeing you out this year?)

Good point on the club sponsored tech issue. There's discussion about that. This E36 thing has certainly highlighted a need.

What if, just kicking out an idea, we were able to get a dyno set up and a tech budget going in Kansas for this sort of thing? Would we be willing to have, like the SRF guys do, an extra "fund" tacked onto our entries? If you totaled the number of individual entries per season, (not just IT), and you added 1 or 2 dollars, you could have a pretty useful budget to do these sorts of things with.

Thoughts?

[Knestis]

We had it right for about half a year - IT's Second Ranaissance.

The fact that SIRs are dramatically change the NEW first principle of the class in a very significant way - to what end, we have NO idea - won't keep it from happening.

K

[pfcs]

The problem is that things are never as simple as they seem. Consider the SIR: in order to drive it's airflow to the sonic barrier, then there has to be a significant pressure differential across it-and this HAS to effect engine tuning significantly-there must be a reduction in airflow/manifold pressure before reacing it's expected airflow (horsepower) limit. Ergo, some tuning will be neccessary before your measurements are really meaningful. And any really smart engine tuner/builder would have to go back to the drawing board-if you take say 20hp off the top, then he'd regroup: shift the torque curve around to maximize the new paramaters/limit high speed airflow to the SIR imposed limit, and redesign the headers (new ID/primary lengths/collector) and quite possibly change lobe displacement angles (VANOS sure opens that door and I guarantee you the club couldn't find it-remember the Honda teardown?). If the club can't do satisfactory compliance checks in the field, what makes you think that they would hire and retain a highly skilled technical person (people with these abilities usually are entepreneurs) AND purchase and maintain the dyno? In my mind, this is magical thinking. What is that rule of logic? That which is simplest works best!
MASS! PS: I think one problem with the Clayton is that the rollers are too small in diameter.
PSS: there isn't a day I don't think about "being back" I'm toying with building another A2. The problem is that everything got ruined in the crash except the engine and RF suspension. ECM, headers, driver's seat, gearbox-you name it, got ruined. And, the A2 ain't really the car for the class-so why go to so much trouble. And, sometimes it seems to me that IT is getting irrelevant, that a formerly great place to play is being taken over by idiots. But thanks for asking, I appreciate that. Phil

[Geo]

Well, obviously some are tired of the same ole', same ole', and I can't say anything fresh and new, except that it is a MEMBER driven, (and really run by members as well), organization. The employess work for the members...
[/b]

Truer words have never been written here.

Sometimes a squeeky wheel does need grease. John, you bend those ears. This ITAC has always encouraged MORE input from members.

[dj10]

my experience with 2 Claytons was lack of consistent results.
The larger issue is that I feel the club should underwrite a proffessional analysis at one well run cerifiably accurate dyno facility (wheel hub preffered-tires introduce a BIG varaible betrween cars) using several cars, with ongoing correction monitoring for each run (air checks)---wait-isn't this getting very complicated and unrealistic? I remember when IT started and some members were fuming that we were going to have junk car racing! What were (are) we thinking? KISS-"keep it simple, stupid!" (I don't mean you, Jake)
[/b]

Well isn't this interesting and scary? :(

[Joe Harlan]

Well isn't this interesting and scary? :(
[/b]

Why is it scary? Because one person says so? Because it doesn't have an over marketed brand name?

[dj10]

Why is it scary? Because one person says so? Because it doesn't have an over marketed brand name?
[/b]

What dyno do you have faith in Joe?

[Joe Harlan]

What dyno do you have faith in Joe?
[/b]
All of them are fine. You need to worry about the operator. FAct is you can make any dyno say what you want it to say. I have used a Clayton,Superflow,Dynojet and dynapac in the last 2 years on the same cars. All provided quality information that was reasonable close to the other provided they were operated by a decent operator. I know what to look for and and throw all runs that are not doen properly.

[dj10]

All of them are fine. You need to worry about the operator. FAct is you can make any dyno say what you want it to say. I have used a Clayton,Superflow,Dynojet and dynapac in the last 2 years on the same cars. All provided quality information that was reasonable close to the other provided they were operated by a decent operator. I know what to look for and and throw all runs that are not doen properly. [/b]

Joe, don't you think if your looking for quality controled data & results you shoud stick to one type of dyno?

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, don't you think if your looking for quality controled data & results you shoud stick to one type of dyno?
[/b]

Sure in a perfect world, Or in my case I can take the data from every dyno and make real comparisons from A/F, run times,ect. The deal is we don't work in a perfect world we have to work from real world averages. SCCA would not be able to maintian a useful dyno anymore than what we have today. We need good volunteers like we have and car owners that are interested in the future of the catagory.

[seckerich]

Sure in a perfect world, Or in my case I can take the data from every dyno and make real comparisons from A/F, run times,ect. The deal is we don't work in a perfect world we have to work from real world averages. SCCA would not be able to maintian a useful dyno anymore than what we have today. We need good volunteers like we have and car owners that are interested in the future of the catagory.
[/b]
Joe is right on the dyno results. I have had some real bad numbers from an operator that did not properly load the rollers back before the run. Just look at the wasted time with a certain TR8 when the air/fuel meter was bad. Most will get you to +/- 5 percent or less for comparison sake. The printout with time based data and good AF readings is worth more than the peak numbers.

[JeffYoung]

Amen brother Steve. I learned my lesson with that.

Dynos are like any other expensive piece of equipment. Make sure the operator and the equipment look up to snuff before using. And, if something doesn't seem right, it usually is not.

Interesting follow up question to the poll, which is now approaching 2:1 in favor of weight?

If you are a BMW driver, did you vote for weight or SIR?

If you are a non-BMW ITS driver, did you vote for weight or SIR?

If you are a non-ITS driver, did you vote for weight or SIR?

I think you will see (and no knock on them, just an observation) most of the 19 votes for the SIR being BMW drivers, plus perhaps Joe and a few others who believe in the technology (and no knock on them for doing so).

Me: Non-BMW ITS driver, voted for weight. Seems like the easiest fix, consistent with class philosophy.

[Ron Earp]

Gosh, I can't remember what I voted for.....

[steve s]

i vote for weight. i am not a bmw driver but do maintain carlos's car. i know he doesnot visit this site.
also as an IT driver i do not think SIR has a plce in IT not yet anyhow,maybe after it is understood a little better. IT is supposed to be a relatively reasonable entry level form of racing[ cost wise] let's just keep it that way.also it was said that you can cheat a FP restrictor so sooner or later they would figure out how to cheat the SIR. to cheat weight is pretty hard since you don't know after a race or qualifying if you would be weighed. just my .02 cents i may be wrong in my thinking if so i 'll stand corrected. :wacko:

[Knestis]

... If you are a non-ITS driver, did you vote for weight or SIR? ...[/b]
Non-ITS driver who thinks SIRs complicate the entire picture way too much, and are going to become one more step toward the implementation of true performance adjustments (blech) in IT.

Look at it this way: Sure there are two sides to the rough weight/power formula but adding mass acts directly on the numerator of the fraction, where adding an SIR acts only indirectly on the power.

K

[dj10]

also it was said that you can cheat a FP restrictor :wacko: [/b]

Steve, if the CRB would have been acurate when they wrote the FRP rule, it could not have been cheated. IMO

[lateapex911]

For those that don't know, the rule stated that you had to run a certain size plate with a certain size hole and the thickness and edge profile were mandated, IIRC.

It also allowed a "spacer" so that the throttle plate would clear the new FPR (Flat Plate Restrictor). Somebody correct me if i have any of this wrong.

.....the net result was that the hole was cut off center in the plate, and the spacer included a ramp profile.
Seems the location of the hole, nor the spacer profile were spelled out.

So, from what I understand, the area of greatest airflow in the spot the plate was to be installed was rather off center. With the hole off center, and the spacer helping, horsepower losses were minimal. My understanding was that even with the early non profiled spacer installed, you could count the losses on one hand. (Actual mileage may vary, depending on how and where you dyno, LOL)

So, to clear that up, the "cheating" wasn't cheating at all..it was smart rules reading, and yes, if the rule had been more thorough, the results would have been different.

[Joe Harlan]

For those that don't know, the rule stated that you had to run a certain size plate with a certain size hole and the thickness and edge profile were mandated, IIRC.

It also allowed a "spacer" so that the throttle plate would clear the new FPR (Flat Plate Restrictor). Somebody correct me if i have any of this wrong.

.....the net result was that the hole was cut off center in the plate, and the spacer included a ramp profile.
Seems the location of the hole, nor the spacer profile were spelled out.

So, from what I understand, the area of greatest airflow in the spot the plate was to be installed was rather off center. With the hole off center, and the spacer helping, horsepower losses were minimal. My understanding was that even with the early non profiled spacer installed, you could count the losses on one hand. (Actual mileage may vary, depending on how and where you dyno, LOL)

So, to clear that up, the "cheating" wasn't cheating at all..it was smart rules reading, and yes, if the rule had been more thorough, the results would have been different.
[/b]

YOu aren't gonna cheat(or be creative) an SIR like that.

[BMW RACER]

Joe and crew.
I can't help but wonder, why don't we just go to a smaller FRP (with the hole in the middle). Save the cost of the SIR and the cost of re-engineering our intake system (air box etc). We already have the spacer.

[Joe Harlan]

John, My personal opinion is an FPR can be cheated to many ways. Second call Frank and ask him how the car will drive with an FPR small enough to actually do the job. My experience with a FPR is they mess up the whole power curve and create serious low flat spots in the throttle response.

[lateapex911]

Joe makes good points.

A smaller FPR was discussed, but they are noted for killing tq and drivability. My understandning is that the internal turbulence can wreak havoc with fuel management, is internally uneven, and is difficult to predict.

That creates two problems. First, from a rulesmaking point of view, the size is difficult to determine.
For the competitor, it represents new needs for tuning and optimization.

I think it was felt that the downsides would be:
=The racers who had the greatest tuning ability would be less effected, while the average racer would have a much more serious uphill battle. The potential existed that the more costly fuel mangement solutions could be more effective.
=The correct size FPR would leave cars that had drivability issues.
=Difficulty in determining the proper size.
= While it seems the infrastructure is alread in place, a new and effective rule would require the producing companies and the racers to start afresh.

The advantages would be
-Less expensive (for the part, tuning would be optional)
-No airbox mods required.

So, from my understanding the FPR was considered early on, but dismissed.
That's not to say that any 'solution' doesn't have drawbacks...they ALL do.

And really, when you're trying to slow a car down, there's no 'painless' way of doing it.

[BMW RACER]

Joe & Jake.
Thanks for the response. Your arguments make sense, but has anyone really tried the smaller FPR?

I'm just going to take a wait and see. Hopefully we should know something soon.

[zracre]

And really, when you're trying to slow a car down, there's no 'painless' way of doing it.
[/b]

True but weight is the cheapest and has the smallest impact on the budget racer...yes you will use more tires and brakes, but if you are on a budget, you are good at conserving that anyways...right? and the other guys wont have to spend all their money buying new tires every weekend just to keep up B) weight is the simplest route.

[charrbq]

Call me opinionated, or cheap, or whatever, but if you can afford to race just about any car in ITS, but in particular a BMW, you don't really worry about the price of additional tire and brake pad wear. Handling will become an issue, but that's part of the point, not just top end.

[Bill Miller]

You know Jake, you could apply most of those same downsides to the implementation of an SIR. And another simple fact of racing life, is that the guys w/ more resources and better ability (both driving and tuning) will make the folks w/ less resources and less ability (aren't those the "average racers"?) work harder. There's no value judgement in that statement, it's a simple fact of life in racing (actually, life in general). Doesn't matter if you're building a full-tilt GT-1 car, or running a spec class, the folks w/ resources and ability will rise to the top.

[zracre]

yep thats why it should be treated like all other IT cars...add weight and go racing. SIR=bad direction for IT these days...let it get developed and some time for implementation down the road after it has been used by some other classes or tested by SCCA more thoroughly. Weight is simple and more in the spirit of IT. These threads on the SIR are getting old and a decision should be made so we can talk about more important issues like washer bottles and wiper stalks B)

[charrbq]

Agreed! I never cease to be amazed at the innovative application of development that goes on at the level of IT. Weight, while constant, can be manipulated...it's proven...50lb. kill switches. But give those who have the resources the opportunity to develop an SIR, and the tech inspectors, rules makers, and competitiors will be left spinning in the dust. :dead_horse:

Speaking of pertinent discussions...I almost broke my signal stalk off my car this weekend when it caught on my pants leg while getting in the car. My crew almost called the paramedics when they saw my panic. I did notice a camera crew from Fox News Network heading my way when they heard me yell. :lol:

[mlytle]

True but weight is the cheapest and has the smallest impact on the budget racer...yes you will use more tires and brakes, but if you are on a budget, you are good at conserving that anyways...right? and the other guys wont have to spend all their money buying new tires every weekend just to keep up B) weight is the simplest route.
[/b]

bzzzzzzt, ah no. at the weight amount being bantered around, that budget may need to include different springs, shock revalving, alignment, suspension tuning days, new diff ratio, etc. weight is not just about wear items.

and i am sure i am already spending just as much on tires and brakes as anyone else out there to compete near the top....without the added weight.

there is no relatively simple route.

[Bill Miller]

bzzzzzzt, ah no. at the weight amount being bantered around, that budget may need to include different springs, shock revalving, alignment, suspension tuning days, new diff ratio, etc. weight is not just about wear items.

and i am sure i am already spending just as much on tires and brakes as anyone else out there to compete near the top....without the added weight.

there is no relatively simple route.
[/b]

Marshall,

While I appreciate the costs associated w/ having to deal w/ those items, is it fair to the rest of the ITS communnity that the E36 should get special treatment, just because somebody screwed the pooch when the car was classified? The rest of ITS has had to deal w/ a car that was mis-classed for several years now. I don't see how they should have to deal w/ it getting special treatment on top of that. One of the real benefits of a defined classification process, is that it's supposed to be pretty objective. Data in, class and spec weight out.

[dj10]

Marshall,

While I appreciate the costs associated w/ having to deal w/ those items, is it fair to the rest of the ITS communnity that the E36 should get special treatment, just because somebody screwed the pooch when the car was classified? The rest of ITS has had to deal w/ a car that was mis-classed for several years now. I don't see how they should have to deal w/ it getting special treatment on top of that. One of the real benefits of a defined classification process, is that it's supposed to be pretty objective. Data in, class and spec weight out. [/b]

Bill, while we appreciate your understanding, is it fair that the E36 has been racing some 6 years in thee ITS class and is only now getting adjusted!? We didn's screw the pooch as you put it, honest. But now we will be the one that suffer if we don't or can't be competative with major losses of money and worse of all time. Most, or at least some of us are ready to give this a try in hope's that this will be good for the whole. If this doesn't work then it's time to look hard a good at making another class. This is my 2nd year in ITS and I never want to hear or see this kind of whinning from any group of, I would hope adults ever again. I think now after all I've seen and heard, to hell with the bylaws, please get us out of ITS. This is the year 2006 everything changes with time and so should the SCCA bylaws. To hell with the weight, SIR, and the FPR give me Improved Touring "F" (FAST) or give me death! :D I forgot to say if the damn car was to fast 6 years ago, why wasn't this done before now. WTG.............6 years of frustration, no wonder everyone is bitching! B)

[Bill Miller]

dj,

The reason it wasn't done prior to now, was that there really was no 'legal' way to do it. A year or two after the E36 was classed, the weight was kicked up by 100#. Several people screamed "You can't do that, it's an illegal comp. adj.!!!", and the CB gave in to them. And I didn't mean to imply that the E36 drivers screwed the pooch, it was the people that set the initial spec weight. BTW, can one of the ITAC folks w/ access to the records check when the E36 325 was first classified, and when the 3rd gen. Supra was first classified. The Supra is the older car, so I would think that it was first.

As far as a class above ITS, I'm all for it. I could care less what it's called, just get it done!!! I've been calling for an increase in the granularity level of IT for the better part of 4 or 5 years now. Pretty much since Kirk floated the whole IT2 idea. The bar has been raised, there haven't been any 'real' ITC cars in over 10 years (at least not any that someone would want to race). The fact that the 2.0 8v New Beetle ended up in ITC is a glaring indication of this. So, you've now got 3 classes to put cars in, and there aren't a whole bunch of new ITB cars either.

Another bucket is needed. It will allow more cars to be classified, and while tighten the performance envelope for those cars already classed. And most of all, it will get rid of this silly notion of choking cars down just so they fit. Screw SIRs, they have no place in IT, and I'm not really sure they have a place in GT. I think they were thrown at GTL as a band-aid to facilitate combining GT4 and GT5.

Don't let guys like Joe shout you down about no room for new classes, and nobody wanting new classes. The fact that SM wasn't enough, and you got enough people together to create SSM shows just how wrong he is. I'll sign any petition that anybody puts together, to add a class above ITS (just as long as you don't include SIRs as part of the classification model). Write letters, it's our club. How many of you E36 guys wouldn't love to run those cars w/ no SIR, no FPR, and at somewhere around 2650#? In the words of Larry the Cable Guy, GIT 'ER DONE!

[charrbq]

Well put. Unlike PCA or other mark clubs, we don't need a crowd of IT classes, but that doesn't mean we haven't got room for more. There are way too many cars out there that are perfect for IT, but they're too fast for the lower classes or too high tech for the upper ones. An excellent example is the IS300. It's market place is against the BMW 325. Why not get off the BMW's butt and move it and the cars of it's performance level up another class. All you have to do is look at what runs in the Speed challenge and see where we could go. All I ask (selfish reasons here) don't mess with ITC. We may be old and few, but we're having a good time. :024:

[dj10]

Bill & Chris,
I understand what you guys said and I'm glad that you think, like I'm sure so many others, that a higher class is fesiable. I also understand about IT and PCA, which to me is totally BS. The main reason I see is that no matter how good the CRB & ITCA is there going to miss a car because of some reason no matter what it is. Therefore they the club needs the ability to make some sort of a adjustment or PCA, what ever. It's going to happen, as true as our sun will implode. How many other cars could be classified in the higher go faster class. Chris made the example of the IS300, I'll bet if we think alittle there would or could be more. Someone's got to grab the bull by the balls and do something if the SCCA is going to continue thrive. Right now, it seem to take an act of Congress to get any damn thing done. Any good leader will not sweep problems under the rug but face them headon and make the hard decisions even if it's not the most popular.

Bill please don't quote anyone with a IQ some 3 points below a cucumber. :D

[zracre]

The integra has been in ITA for years too and got a weight adjustment...on a scale of power and weight, the difference will probably be similar on the BMW...i need to change springs/valving weight distribution and find more power somewhere, but it will still be competitive...stepping out of ITS because of weight difference now would be silly. I need to spend more on brakes and tires than before but thats racing!!!

[mlytle]

Marshall,

While I appreciate the costs associated w/ having to deal w/ those items, is it fair to the rest of the ITS communnity that the E36 should get special treatment, just because somebody screwed the pooch when the car was classified? The rest of ITS has had to deal w/ a car that was mis-classed for several years now. I don't see how they should have to deal w/ it getting special treatment on top of that. One of the real benefits of a defined classification process, is that it's supposed to be pretty objective. Data in, class and spec weight out.
[/b]

bill,
my point had nothing to do with what is fair, and was not intended to be a springboard for another tirade about bmw's getting this mythical "special treatment".

another poster stated adding weight was simple, an implied cheap no brainer. my point was simplyt that the premise was incorrect. adding weight was neither simple nor cheap. there is no simple or cheap way to screw with a car using rules to try and make it slower, 6 years after it is classed and people have invested large efforts to build to the existing rules. the continual bs about "throw 300lbs at it and be done with it" shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem.

[zracre]

bill,
my point had nothing to do with what is fair, and was not intended to be a springboard for another tirade about bmw's getting this mythical "special treatment".

another poster stated adding weight was simple, an implied cheap no brainer. my point was simplyt that the premise was incorrect. adding weight was neither simple nor cheap. there is no simple or cheap way to screw with a car using rules to try and make it slower, 6 years after it is classed and people have invested large efforts to build to the existing rules. the continual bs about "throw 300lbs at it and be done with it" shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem.
[/b]

Yea I guess I wouldnt know anything about being classed for 6 years then getting weight thrown at me...

[mlytle]

Yea I guess I wouldnt know anything about being classed for 6 years then getting weight thrown at me...
[/b]

i suspect you do, and never said you didn't. it is all bad, but 300 isn't in the same ball park as 100. even proportionally to current weight.

[zracre]

the beemer goes fine as a track car...i have seen modified ones way faster than it cars with the same brakes...a street 325 weighs about 3100 they dont tax the brakes as they are fine at the current weight. My car wears brakes as they are small for its old weight...now its heavier. my car makes 135 to 140 hp...and 127 ft lbs...power isnt an issue with the BMW you make 185 to 200+...id go with the weight as you can always tune more power w/o an SIR. I know if they stuff an SIR on my Teg (ITS or ITA) im outta here!

[Bill Miller]

bill,
my point had nothing to do with what is fair, and was not intended to be a springboard for another tirade about bmw's getting this mythical "special treatment".

another poster stated adding weight was simple, an implied cheap no brainer. my point was simplyt that the premise was incorrect. adding weight was neither simple nor cheap. there is no simple or cheap way to screw with a car using rules to try and make it slower, 6 years after it is classed and people have invested large efforts to build to the existing rules. the continual bs about "throw 300lbs at it and be done with it" shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem.
[/b]


"mythical 'special treatment'"? No myths about it Marshall. It's the only car that doesn't have to run at its process weight, the ONLY one. When one car gets treated different than all the rest, that's special treatment. You can call it 'mythical' all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's very real.

[seckerich]

I had an RX7 turbo II that I built for my wife as a track car. Weighed in at 3040 with driver and had the same brakes as my ITS car. Put down about 200-205 at the rear wheels and ran on 225-50-16 toyo's. I could run 1:21 - 1:22 all day at Savannah at a track day and never have a problem with brakes or tires. Thats pole time for ITS and the same power, weight, and tire size as the BMW can run. Don't tell me your world will end with the weight if it comes down to that-doesn't fly here.

[Joe Harlan]

I had an RX7 turbo II that I built for my wife as a track car. Weighed in at 3040 with driver and had the same brakes as my ITS car. Put down about 200-205 at the rear wheels and ran on 225-50-16 toyo's. I could run 1:21 - 1:22 all day at Savannah at a track day and never have a problem with brakes or tires. Thats pole time for ITS and the same power, weight, and tire size as the BMW can run. Don't tell me your world will end with the weight if it comes down to that-doesn't fly here.
[/b]

Steve, I don't think marshall is saying the world will end but his point about it not being the cheapest or simplest solution is valid......
You guys are gonna just have to excuse Bill is his been on the special bus for quite sometime now.....(kidding bill)

[mlytle]

Steve, I don't think marshall is saying the world will end but his point about it not being the cheapest or simplest solution is valid......
You guys are gonna just have to excuse Bill is his been on the special bus for quite sometime now.....(kidding bill)
[/b]
:happy204:
thanks joe. you got it.

i didn't say the world would end. i didn't say the chassis couldn't handle it. i just said it wouldn't be as easy as some folks imply.

[seckerich]

Steve, I don't think marshall is saying the world will end but his point about it not being the cheapest or simplest solution is valid......
You guys are gonna just have to excuse Bill is his been on the special bus for quite sometime now.....(kidding bill)
[/b]
Probably true Joe. We used about 50# stiffer springs on all corners and more agressive shock valving but still a very comparable package. If the SIR works it will make better racing in the long run.