April SIR ruling

[Joe Harlan]

Perhaps I should clarify my position a bit...

I agree that you cannot use a "hard and fast" method to classify cars, though I should note I never used that term or anything like it. There are simply too many varieties of cars out there to not have some additions or subtractions to the base formula. Those adders should be consistent within a given class however - ie FWD should always be a 100 lb subtraction for ITS, 50 lb for ITA, 0 for ITB or ITC - actual numbers for example only!!!

That said however, I believe that all cars should start out with the same basic formula, then you add/subtract for differences in vehicle architecture. A single percentage for HP increase in IT trim should be used. If Car A and Car B both have the same stock HP, torque, drive configuration, suspension setup, etc then they should weigh exactly the same. If Car A happens to get 1 or 2% better HP increase than the bogey, while Car B gets exactly the bogey then so be it. Car A will be a (slightly) better car.

Using "real" dyno data is dangerous, IMHO. Unless a single control dyno is used and the engines are confirmed to be maxed, legal and properly tuned, I don't believe that it is proof one car responds better to IT mods than another.

To Andy's examples...

Assuming these cars are in ITS, the base formula would be 170*1.25*12.9, which equals 2741.25. If both cars were RWD, strut suspension, etc, the ITS weight should be 2750.

For purposes of discussion lets use some simple weight add/subtracts:
Double wishbone: +50 lbs per axle
50-50 weight dist: +50 lbs
FWD: -100 lbs

Trans ratios are tough to quantify. I think in ITS, most of the cars should have good to excellent ratios, they're mostly performance based vehicles after all. I think I would consider this a wash in ITS, unless a given car has economy based gears, then I would make it a subtractor of 25-50 lbs? An older 4-speed ITS car should be given a break as well. Personally I think gearboxes play a larger role in the classifications in the lower classes where you are likely to see some REALLY bad ratios.

Car #1 should be 2900 lbs.

Car #2 should be 2650 lbs.

Based on the specs of each vehicle as listed, I think that those are good weights. We can quibble on the values of the individual add/subtracts but we are left with a FWD, 60-40, strut car that is 250 lbs lighter than a identical HP, torque RWD, 50-50, double wishbone car. That seems about right to me, give a take a few lbs one way or the other.
[/b]

Greg, how do you handle 4 valve and Vtec twin cam stuff? I don't see that in your math. Also these are all production based cars. Most have crappy 2nd to 3rd gear splits the BMW does not. The 240z has basicly 2 usable gears at any given track. How do you deal with that?

[Eagle7]

...
If this is the way the CRB wants to go, I would support a spec intake set-up 100% sold through SCCA Enterprises.
...
AB
[/b]
Yikes! I hope you're just yanking our chain, Andy. Now we want the SCCA to be building and selling spec parts that they designed for a single marque? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

CRB - please give them their 300 lbs and be done with it.

[Bill Miller]

NO Bill as normal you just want to rant....you have seen no tests that are actually done on a car in a proper state of tune. So you have no idea what the effect will be. Now I will say that I was wrong only because the IT rules don't allow the install far enough away from the MAF but I will bet money that with in a year that problem will be solved and the 29MM will be too big.
[/b]


Joe,

Bob Dowie said that the 29mm SIR pulls ~20hp off the top of the E36. Andy (and others I believe) have said that the SIR impacts all motors, not just ones making more than the target hp. We have a dyno plot of a motor in less than an optimum state of tune, that started out below the SIR target hp number, that had ~20 hp chopped off w/ the SIR. To me, that's a pretty good indication that the motor isn't "blind" to the SIR below the target hp. And frankly, that was one of my biggest beefs w/ the SIR to begin with. I thought it was total BS to implement something that would let guys get to the hp limit w/o maxed-out efforts.

SIRs are fine for full-tilt pro efforts on purpose-built race engines, as a power limiting device. They don't belong on mildly tuned passenger car motors.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

Bob Dowie said that the 29mm SIR pulls ~20hp off the top of the E36. Andy (and others I believe) have said that the SIR impacts all motors, not just ones making more than the target hp. We have a dyno plot of a motor in less than an optimum state of tune, that started out below the SIR target hp number, that had ~20 hp chopped off w/ the SIR. To me, that's a pretty good indication that the motor isn't "blind" to the SIR below the target hp. And frankly, that was one of my biggest beefs w/ the SIR to begin with. I thought it was total BS to implement something that would let guys get to the hp limit w/o maxed-out efforts.

SIRs are fine for full-tilt pro efforts on purpose-built race engines, as a power limiting device. They don't belong on mildly tuned passenger car motors.[/b]


Bill qualify this as your opinion.Fact is SIR's fit better in a no mod class like IT because you are not going to engineer around them period. I still feel the 29 is to big so your right the e36 is getting a gift but BFD it will be better now for other marques than it has been in years. As I said I was wrong on a poor running engine being blind to it but I have not seen any proof yet that a proper running engine has a major loss in performance. Remember HP is not what I care about under the curve. I think the torque on the bimmer is the number that will keep it up front and still the car to have..

[Greg Krom]

Greg, how do you handle 4 valve and Vtec twin cam stuff? I don't see that in your math. Also these are all production based cars. Most have crappy 2nd to 3rd gear splits the BMW does not. The 240z has basicly 2 usable gears at any given track. How do you deal with that?
[/b]

I honestly don't know what the best way to address VTEC and the like. Does it even need to be addressed? Often times those systems come with their own set of drawbacks that offset much of the gains - ie they rev forever but they have no bottom end at all. Driveability/Raceability usually suffers. By looking at hp and torque aren't you already accounting for that?

If a car has an *exceptionally* good set of gears, then maybe it's due for a small adder. Though I think if it were up to me, I'd be inclined to just leave it alone and chalk that up as one advantage in the BMW's court. Is the gearing really that much better? I honestly don't know - I'm asking. If the 240 had the BMW's gearing would the results from the last few years have been reversed? I suspect not. The gearing is a factor in the BMW's success, but probably a small one relative to it's other advantages - most notably the weight that is a good 200 pounds too low.

[mlytle]

Hey Marshall... The problem with this is that if it remains a class with an IT type ruleset, then we are still screwed. There is very little weight left to take out of the E36 without composites, lexan, greater component removal...certainly not 200#!

DProd is probably the best bet (another can of worms there of course).

...OR the SCCA sees the writing on the wall with the way current "street tuning" is going and the ITR (or whatever) class allows cams, flywheels, composites, and big brakes!!!
[/b]

i think we could easily make it down to 2750 in it trim. my car for example. i run min weight(2850) with me (195lb), 50lbs of ballast and a half tank of gas. there are still some things i could remove from the car too.

unrestricted and 100lbs lighter? bring it on! :happy204:

or on your last point...maybe scca could just adopt the bmwcca prepared rules for the itx class...cams, wings, brakes, etc!

[Joe Harlan]

I honestly don't know what the best way to address VTEC and the like. Does it even need to be addressed? Often times those systems come with their own set of drawbacks that offset much of the gains - ie they rev forever but they have no bottom end at all. Driveability/Raceability usually suffers. By looking at hp and torque aren't you already accounting for that?

If a car has an *exceptionally* good set of gears, then maybe it's due for a small adder. Though I think if it were up to me, I'd be inclined to just leave it alone and chalk that up as one advantage in the BMW's court. Is the gearing really that much better? I honestly don't know - I'm asking. If the 240 had the BMW's gearing would the results from the last few years have been reversed? I suspect not. The gearing is a factor in the BMW's success, but probably a small one relative to it's other advantages - most notably the weight that is a good 200 pounds too low.
[/b]


Well Greg that's why the guy's that are doing the job are doing it. They understand that the things they are using for +'s and -'s are needed to get these cars closer than we ever have in the past. I have worked with enigines all of my life and I can tell you I have never seen a case that VTEC was not a performance gain in this type of application. FI is a gain over carbs, Brakes are better than they ever have been...and Gear ratio's will play a big part in any cars success. So I guess I agree with your math far more than I disagree with the ITAC's math.

[Eagle7]

CRB - please give them their 300 lbs and be done with it.
[/b]
I just sent this letter to the CRB.

Dear Sirs,



I have watched with great interest the consideration of the classification of the ITS BMW E36. I was initially quite open to the idea of using SIRs to bring the BMW into parity with the class target. However the information we got from the results of the testing, and the subsequent resizing of the SIR have convinced me that this was a serious error. The IT community (as evidenced by the forums on ImprovedTouring.com) is in the midst of a “war” trying to deal with this result. Slanderous accusations aimed at ITAC members are commonplace. I don’t expect this to settle out for quite some time, and even then the result is open to serious question. The SIR may prove to be a “killer” of the BMW’s competitiveness. Or it may prove to be ineffective in sufficiently reducing the performance of a well-engineered implementation. In my mind it’s likely that it will further separate the “haves” from the “have nots”, rather than bring them closer together.



I have concluded that the SIR is not well suited for Improved Touring racing, and would ask that you rescind its specification for the BMW, and apply the “process” weight to that car in its place.



Thank you for your consideration,

Marty Doane

West Michigan Region

# 321263

Owner/Driver ITS RX-7

[jimmy p]

Greg, how do you handle 4 valve and Vtec twin cam stuff? I don't see that in your math. Also these are all production based cars. Most have crappy 2nd to 3rd gear splits the BMW does not. The 240z has basicly 2 usable gears at any given track. How do you deal with that?
[/b]

You dont, you start with a better car.
Why (continue to) dumb the BMW down to meet the bottom cars, just accept the fact that some companies build better "base" cars than others.

Greg has what "should" be going down right on.
Any descrepancies in the "formula" for cars opens the can of snakes going on now.

Some cars are just make better race cars than others. Time SCCA faced up to that.
Just my .02 (going back to lurking)
jimmy p.

[e36its]

Greg, how do you handle 4 valve and Vtec twin cam stuff? I don't see that in your math. Also these are all production based cars. Most have crappy 2nd to 3rd gear splits the BMW does not. The 240z has basicly 2 usable gears at any given track. How do you deal with that?[/b]
Interesting question, Joe. Seems like the bigger question is what information is relevant as an input to a performance balancing equation and what information is just a characteristic of the car chosen.

tom

[Greg Krom]

Well Greg that's why the guy's that are doing the job are doing it. They understand that the things they are using for +'s and -'s are needed to get these cars closer than we ever have in the past. I have worked with enigines all of my life and I can tell you I have never seen a case that VTEC was not a performance gain in this type of application. FI is a gain over carbs, Brakes are better than they ever have been...and Gear ratio's will play a big part in any cars success. So I guess I agree with your math far more than I disagree with the ITAC's math.
[/b]

The condescending tone is completely uncalled for. I have not said one nasty or condescending word to anybody in this discussion.

I understand, and agree completely, that certain aspects of vehicle construction need to be factored into their race classification and that additions or subtractions need to be made to cover that.

If you go back and look at my original post, you would see that my one and only point of argument here is that using different multipliers for percentage HP increase in IT trim opens the "process" up for question.

Based on the specs that Andy gave me - what weights would you have come up with? Where is my math on those examples flawed?

I know that VTEC is a performance gain and that FI is (typically) better than carbs. My point is that those features are why a car has X hp and torque and they likely do not need to be further penalized (or rewarded) for the features that resulted in those ratings.

Here's an exercise - you've got two cars sitting next to each other, both with identical chassis, drive configuration, brakes, gearing, aero, etc. Both have 170 hp and 150 torque. One is VTEC DOHC, one is DOHC with "traditional" valve timing. What are the weights? Of course that is an unrealistic example but I'm curious to see the answer.







Interesting question, Joe. Seems like the bigger question is what information is relevant as an input to a performance balancing equation and what information is just a characteristic of the car chosen.

tom
[/b]

EXACTLY.

That is what I was trying to say, but couldn't come up with the right words.

[Jeremy Billiel]

I know that VTEC is a performance gain and that FI is (typically) better than carbs. My point is that those features are why a car has X hp and torque and they likely do not need to be further penalized (or rewarded) for the features that resulted in those ratings.

Here's an exercise - you've got two cars sitting next to each other, both with identical chassis, drive configuration, brakes, gearing, aero, etc. Both have 170 hp and 150 torque. One is VTEC DOHC, one is DOHC with "traditional" valve timing. What are the weights? Of course that is an unrealistic example but I'm curious to see the answer.
EXACTLY.

That is what I was trying to say, but couldn't come up with the right words.
[/b]

How did this turn into VTEC bashing now? I am always amazed by how everyone including SCCA thinks VTEC is a special button that is far superior.

Let's take a quiz...

Why did Honda build VTEC for their engines?
A. Create Better gas miliage
B. Make more HP
C. None of the above
D. A +B

Honda made VTEC to be fuel efficient below 5K when normal daily driving happens, yet still have a punch when you step on the gas. Its not magic. Honda can make non-VTEC cars make HP, but gas milage suffers.

All VTEC does if give the consumer both worlds. Thats it!

Take car A with VTEC and Car B without and their weights should be the same IMO. In fact I would prefer the non-VTEC car!

[Joe Harlan]

The condescending tone is completely uncalled for. I have not said one nasty or condescending word to anybody in this discussion.

I understand, and agree completely, that certain aspects of vehicle construction need to be factored into their race classification and that additions or subtractions need to be made to cover that.

If you go back and look at my original post, you would see that my one and only point of argument here is that using different multipliers for percentage HP increase in IT trim opens the "process" up for question.

Based on the specs that Andy gave me - what weights would you have come up with? Where is my math on those examples flawed?

I know that VTEC is a performance gain and that FI is (typically) better than carbs. My point is that those features are why a car has X hp and torque and they likely do not need to be further penalized (or rewarded) for the features that resulted in those ratings.

Here's an exercise - you've got two cars sitting next to each other, both with identical chassis, drive configuration, brakes, gearing, aero, etc. Both have 170 hp and 150 torque. One is VTEC DOHC, one is DOHC with "traditional" valve timing. What are the weights? Of course that is an unrealistic example but I'm curious to see the answer.
EXACTLY.

That is what I was trying to say, but couldn't come up with the right words.
[/b]


Greg you can read what ever tone into it you want but there was none intended. My issue is Andy posed a formula to you that included VTEC and you completely ignored or missed it.

This is not a VTEC bashing as you would put it and I agree with your information but your not being completely honest. With a custom controller Vtec has the benefit of both lowend torque and high RPM pwoer output. That is why it must be considered as part of the equation. We have to look at a fully prepped engine and control package. If it were not worth something then everyone would be happy with the stock box.

Enough of this for me...The SIR is in and I would rather spend my time answering private messages from those that are trying to make it work.

Greg, if you took anything out of any of my posts as taking a shot at you I'm sorry that's not the case.

BTW VTEC was the wrong wording how about VVT and Vtec.....That way you cover all car makers.

[Greg Krom]

Greg you can read what ever tone into it you want but there was none intended. My issue is Andy posed a formula to you that included VTEC and you completely ignored or missed it.

This is not a VTEC bashing as you would put it and I agree with your information but your nit being completely honest. With a custom controller Vtec has the benefit of both lowend torque and high RPM pwoer output. That is why it must be considered as part of the equation. We have to look at a fully prepped engine and control package. If it were not worth something then everyone would be happy with the stock box.

Enough of this for me...The SIR is in and I would rather spend my time answering private messages from those that are trying to make it work.

Greg, if you took anything out of any of my posts as taking a shot at you I'm sorry that's not the case.
[/b]

No problem. Sorry if I misread the tone.

Andy's formula did not include VTEC, at least not that I can see - I just reread it.

Here is the text:



Let me ask you this: What weight would you classifiy the following cars at?

#1. RWD, double wishbones, 50-50 weight, excellent tranny ratios, 170 stock hp. 150 stock torque
#2. FWD, struts all around, 60-40 weight, crappy tranny ratios, 170 stock hp. 150 stock torque

If you answer the same weight, you are doing a disservice to the membership. I think the members would rather a small chance of a small mistake (that is unmeasuable in IT IMHO) with the tradeoff of a chance to podium given top prep and a top drive - in almost any car in the class.

AB

[/b]

[zracre]

You dont, you start with a better car.
Why (continue to) dumb the BMW down to meet the bottom cars, just accept the fact that some companies build better "base" cars than others.

Greg has what "should" be going down right on.
Any descrepancies in the "formula" for cars opens the can of snakes going on now.

Some cars are just make better race cars than others. Time SCCA faced up to that.
Just my .02 (going back to lurking)
jimmy p.
[/b]

this is silly and out of hand...why im posting is beyond me but here goes...ITA was dominated by "H" cars...fine I drive one and tend to dominate my region (when a certain "B" car shows up...but different subject altogether) they gave me a penalty. Fine i worked with it. I rtace an ITS integra now. It is a 1.8 litre VTEC...built to the hilt it cant pull 140 ft/lbs. It probably makes 175BHP and if I spend 10k+ I can get 190...It will still not be a front runner all the time. It is too heavy. The ITAC and others have made giant leaps to make our classes more competitive. I am sure many are sore from comp adjustments. My opinion is SIR's have no place in IT but they are here so try them and stop bitching! If they dont work and you finish 2nd, oh well write to SCCA and stop bitching so much!!!!!!! I bitched about my comp adjustment and am thankful it is not an SIR. Spend your energy complaining to SCCA to remove it and add weight. I see more people on here bitching than I see in fastrack saying it should not be implemented. Get over it and move on. Squeaky wheel gets the oil...squeaking here gets you a reputation as a whiner!!!!!! Squeak to SCCA.

[Bill Miller]

Bill qualify this as your opinion.Fact is SIR's fit better in a no mod class like IT because you are not going to engineer around them period. I still feel the 29 is to big so your right the e36 is getting a gift but BFD it will be better now for other marques than it has been in years. As I said I was wrong on a poor running engine being blind to it but I have not seen any proof yet that a proper running engine has a major loss in performance. Remember HP is not what I care about under the curve. I think the torque on the bimmer is the number that will keep it up front and still the car to have..
[/b]

Seriously Joe, now it's startin to sound like double talk. You said that you can't engnieer around an SIR. Now you say that's only going to be the case on an IT motor. I'm not an engineer or a motor builder, but a motor is an air pump, the more air you can move through it, the more power it will make. The way I understand an SIR, it limits the max. flow rate through the motor. How do you engineer around that?

As far as how it will do on a 'healthy' motor, I'm willing to accept Bob Dowie's comments. It's my understanding that he did a lot of the testing at his shop.

I do agree w/ you though, peak hp isn't what's important, it's the area under the curve. And those BMW motors are torque monsters.

[Knestis]

I really used to love the conversations, debates, new ideas, new ways of looking at OLD ideas, and comraderie here and in IT more generally. I take it very personally that prevalent non-virtual world selfishness, sense of entitlement, and take-no-prisoners loud-mouthing have ruined that.

I'm equal parts embarrassed by this whole mess and irritated by the fact that it could have been avoided, had the CRB just followed the only-one-year-old process as it was designed.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg,

I think for the most part, we are on the same page. We just disagree on the % to add for IT-prep and for the amount for adders in some cases. I think that, to date, our process has been incredibly successful. The only car that keeps dodging the process is the E36 so we may never know.

While we disagree, great posts. Thanks for the well thought out info.

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Seriously Joe, now it's startin to sound like double talk. You said that you can't engnieer around an SIR. Now you say that's only going to be the case on an IT motor. I'm not an engineer or a motor builder, but a motor is an air pump, the more air you can move through it, the more power it will make. The way I understand an SIR, it limits the max. flow rate through the motor. How do you engineer around that?

As far as how it will do on a 'healthy' motor, I'm willing to accept Bob Dowie's comments. It's my understanding that he did a lot of the testing at his shop.

I do agree w/ you though, peak hp isn't what's important, it's the area under the curve. And those BMW motors are torque monsters.
[/b]
Bill, The problem with SIR's on full tilt engines is they are effected by compression and cam selection ect. So there is still some engineering in them. When classing a car in an unlimited class you have to account for all these issues. That's why IT will be easier to deal with than a full race unlimited package. We don't have those issues (or shouldn't) in IT. Why do you have to say crap like double talk and that. You have been around long enough that I have no reason to BS the system or you so back off. You don't like the idea and I do. Now it's done deal with it and learn as much as you can to help others because that's what I have done and continue to do.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You dont, you start with a better car.
Why (continue to) dumb the BMW down to meet the bottom cars, just accept the fact that some companies build better "base" cars than others.

Greg has what "should" be going down right on.
Any descrepancies in the "formula" for cars opens the can of snakes going on now.

Some cars are just make better race cars than others. Time SCCA faced up to that.
Just my .02 (going back to lurking)
jimmy p. [/b]

Jimmy,

I fear you have missed the point. It isn't about 'dumbing' anything down. It's about working with each car the same way with the same intent. There are no 'discrepencies' in the process. There are considerations for different technologies that allow for a much more accurate estimation.

Some cars ARE better than others. And I fully expect the cream to rise to the top after all the cars have been put through the process. It will happen in ITA, ITB and ITC...and the racing in those classes will be the BEST EVER this year (IMHO). Someone on the Honda BB estimated that you had 13 cool, legit choices to run in ITA and still have a chance to win...that is unprecidented and such a GOOD thing IMHO.

There is only one car in the ITCS that hasn't had it's turn through the process...and it continues to be the biggest issue in IT. If the E36 gets run through and isn't as competitive as it once was, do you still want to stick by your position that some cars are 'just better'? I ask because that is how it is for everyone else in IT.

[jimmy p]

Jimmy,

I fear you have missed the point. It isn't about 'dumbing' anything down. It's about working with each car the same way with the same intent. There are no 'discrepencies' in the process. There are considerations for different technologies that allow for a much more accurate estimation.[/b]

This is where I feel and it seems most other BMW people feel you guys completely blow it.
I stand by my original post, based on the previous post by Greg cut and pasted below in red (paraphased for brevity).
You blow it in the "subjective" adders, multipliers, etc.
Handle every car the same, use a fixed multiplier for IT prep, and "then" see what rises to the top.

Why cripple one car with additional subjective adders and multipliers just because its a better base car?
Thats just my opinion, Greg said it all better than I ever could.
See Greg's post below, it says everything I feel is wrong with the "process" system.

Thats all I will post here, as I do not race ITS so I do not feel entitled to post further on this subject but after watching it for quite some time (years) from the sidelines, it bothers me alot what is going on and I felt compelled to post.

<<< In order for a classification process to be unquestionably valid it needs to utilize consistent multipliers, across the board. If testing has shown that the average IT build yields a 25% (or 22% or 27%...) increase over stock than that is the number that needs to be used for ALL classifications, that way all of the cars in a given class will have the same bogey power to weight ratio. The ability of certain cars, or individual builders, to legally meet or exceed that bogey number will then determine the good cars versus the bad....
(cont)...
By changing the multiplier for certain cars you are opening yourselves up to crys of "foul". >>>[i][color=#FF0000]

Cheers
jimmy p.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thanks for the reply Jimmy. I stand by my response to Greg&#39;s post. There is no way you can use a static multiplier for IT-prep. It creates HUGE disparities in cars. And the notion that this is some sort of &#39;crippling&#39; of one car is really the perception of a group of drivers that haven&#39;t taken the time to see how other cars fit the same mold.

One of the big flaws in the quote you selected in red is very obvious. Using a static multiplier is NOT the way to have "all of the cars in a given class will have the same bogey power to weight ratio." The way to do that is to have a static target power to weight multiplier - which all the classes do. THAT is the part of the &#39;process&#39; that needs to remain static so that the power to weight is in the same zone - but you then have to make concessions for other attributes. Otherwise you will have ONE car dominate each class REAL quick. That is NOT what IT is about and I don&#39;t know one driver wo wants that either.

All cars have these subjective charateristics considered when classified. Membership has never been more upbeat about the classifications.

Frankly, the car that would benefit the most from your theory is anything with a rotory in it. It&#39;s BIG PICTURE time people!

AB

[lateapex911]

Jimmy, then you want "Spec IT"... and it would make me veeeerry happy, because MY weight would be based on the standard IT prep. So, my weight would be (using a &#39;standard&#39; 20% increase, it&#39;s a carbed car after all, using a 110 stock hp figure, then multilying by the standard ITA multiplier) ...well, it&#39;s silly...it&#39;s about 1880.

Of course, it has no torque.....

See, that&#39;s why the process can&#39;t just let a cars&#39; "natural strengths" define the outcome. Rotaries respond to IT prep differently. What about front wheel drive? Or transmissions with over drive 4th gears?

If we just set the weights on a flat basis with no "adders" or "subtracters" and assumed all engines gained the same amount with IT prep, we would wind up with basically 4 classes of "Spec IT", and we would all just sell our cars and buy whatever wound up on top.

So we apply repeatable factors and produce a weight using a repeatable process. In the end, of course, it&#39;s not perfect. There are too many variables, too many assumptions and too many &#39;situations&#39; to be able to create perfect parity. By situations, I mean different tracks, different weather factors, and so on.

But hopefully it&#39;s close. Very close. So close that it boils down to prep and driving, and what car likes the track that day. We think we&#39;ve made real progress in that direction. The numbers look good so far, so let the cream rise.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, The problem with SIR&#39;s on full tilt engines is they are effected by compression and cam selection ect. So there is still some engineering in them. When classing a car in an unlimited class you have to account for all these issues. That&#39;s why IT will be easier to deal with than a full race unlimited package. We don&#39;t have those issues (or shouldn&#39;t) in IT. Why do you have to say crap like double talk and that. You have been around long enough that I have no reason to BS the system or you so back off. You don&#39;t like the idea and I do. Now it&#39;s done deal with it and learn as much as you can to help others because that&#39;s what I have done and continue to do.
[/b]


Joe,

If cam selection has an impact on an SIR, how do you address cars w/ VVT? It also sounds like you can engineer around them in a GT motor, based on what you said.

I said that it sounds like double talk because you were spouting the marketing lit from Raetech, but now that these things (SIRs) don&#39;t perform as advertised, you&#39;re qualifying the cases where they work. Have you worked on a dyno w/ one (or a series) of these things (SIR) yet? If not, you&#39;ve placed a lot of faith in something that you haven&#39;t tested first-hand.

And you&#39;re right, I don&#39;t like the idea of an SIR on the E36, but probably not for the reasons that you think I don&#39;t like it. And while you may be willing to accept the CRB ramming something down your throat (something that&#39;s pretty much unproven in an IT car), I&#39;m (and it seems like several others) not.


The fact that these things come from pretty much a single supplier, who just happened to provide the test data to the SCCA, should have been a huge red flag from the outset. And I&#39;m talking about when this thing was floated for GT-Lite. It smacks of conflict of interest. And what&#39;s going to happen when you get a few people that write to the CRB, and tell them that they can&#39;t get 29mm SIRs from Raetech for another few weeks? Are they going to push the implementation date back another month? First it was one size on one date, then that date got pushed back, now the date&#39;s been pushed again, and the size has changed. But wait, the supplier doesn&#39;t have any of the new size, and won&#39;t for a week or two (maybe more). An outsider who sees this must really think we&#39;re a bunch of wankers.

This thing has been a joke for the past 2 years now, and the CRB have let the folks on the ITAC take a TON of heat for their (CRB&#39;s decision). I&#39;d love to see the data and calculations that supported the sizing of the original FPR. Any of you ITAC folks have those? How about you Mr. Dowie, do you have that information?

[erlrich]

Handle every car the same, use a fixed multiplier for IT prep, and "then" see what rises to the top.[/b]

Jimmy - just in case you happen to be one of the (few) guys who subscribes to the whole "Andy and the ITAC are out to get the BMW" b/s (not saying you are, but just in case); let me say as an ITA guy with no stake whatsoever in this issue that this would be the worst possible thing you could do. As Andy & Jake have already stated, if you were to use the same multiplier for every car you will almost certainly end up with one, or at most a couple, of cars in each class that would dominate. I&#39;m hoping that is a situation nobody wants. Is "the process" perfect? I doubt it. But from what I&#39;ve seen and heard it&#39;s a helluva lot better than anything we&#39;ve had in the past.

Oh, and for the record I am one of those who feels the BMW drivers are getting a raw deal, but I attribute it to a flawed, rushed decision-making process, not some huge conspiracy designed to benefit some individual.


Why cripple one car with additional subjective adders and multipliers just because its a better base car?[/b]

Not sure if you mean "Why cripple ANY one car..." or "Why cripple the BMW...", but if it&#39;s the former then the idea is to "cripple" the cars with perceived performance advantages in an attempt to level the playing field. If you meant the latter, well then there&#39;s no reply that will satisfy you.

[Bill Miller]

You sir are a jackass of the first order, and I hope the webmaster does the right thing and outs your ass! :018:

&#39;Sack, how about you change your name to Mike Hunt (I actually knew someone by that name!!!)? If you don&#39;t see the sophomoric nature of it, then I can&#39;t help you. We&#39;re supposed to be adults here, engaging in mature discourse. There is a time and a place to be a jokester.
[/b]


Still waiting to see if the Webmaster will &#39;out&#39; New Guy. I agree w/ HB, I&#39;m pretty sure it&#39;s one of the regulars. What a frickin&#39; coward!

[seckerich]

Oh, and for the record I am one of those who feels the BMW drivers are getting a raw deal, but I attribute it to a flawed, rushed decision-making process, not some huge conspiracy designed to benefit some individual.


If five years plus is a rushed decision I would hate to see how long it takes to fix the next screwup. Fix it--move on and lets go racing. Jimmy P has BMW in his blood but you can not fault him for wanting to keep his chosen make at the front--just not way in the front. IT is not the "car of the year club" as it has been in the past and it is time to get used to it.

[erlrich]

Oh, and for the record I am one of those who feels the BMW drivers are getting a raw deal, but I attribute it to a flawed, rushed decision-making process, not some huge conspiracy designed to benefit some individual.

If five years plus is a rushed decision I would hate to see how long it takes to fix the next screwup. Fix it--move on and lets go racing. Jimmy P has BMW in his blood but you can not fault him for wanting to keep his chosen make at the front--just not way in the front. IT is not the "car of the year club" as it has been in the past and it is time to get used to it.
[/b]

I guess that was a poorly worded statement. What I should have said is I feel they got a raw deal, not in the fact that the car was reigned in, but in the way the changes were implemented. To force them to install a still unproven, lightly tested, brand new (to IT anyway) technology that is currently being supplied by one vendor, who doesn&#39;t even have the proper sized item in stock, and to have it all done in about five weeks is a little much to ask IMHO. I&#39;m sure if we look at it objectively there are few of us who wouldn&#39;t be pissed if it were our cars.

I really like the suggestion about giving the BMW guys an option - weight or SIR - for the remainder of this season, with the stipulation that SIRs will be required beginning 1/1/07.

[Harry Balszac]

Oh, and for the record I am one of those who feels the BMW drivers are getting a raw deal, but I attribute it to a flawed, rushed decision-making process, not some huge conspiracy designed to benefit some individual.
If five years plus is a rushed decision I would hate to see how long it takes to fix the next screwup. Fix it--move on and lets go racing. Jimmy P has BMW in his blood but you can not fault him for wanting to keep his chosen make at the front--just not way in the front. IT is not the "car of the year club" as it has been in the past and it is time to get used to it.
[/b]


First, Bill Miller, I also wish "New Guy" would be outed. But I seriously doubt it will happen, sadly.

Second, Steve, I actually agree with your points above. I do not think anyone created a conspiracy to benefit an individual. The PROCESS is flawed from start to finish, as you said so well. And one of the things (but by no means the ONLY thing) that has contributed to the process sucking so badly is the creation & continued enhancement of an appearance of conflicts of interest by Andy&#39;s involvement. Unfortunately, appearances easily become reality...and just saying "all my friends like me & say I am honest" does not cut it as a response. Andy should have recused himself long ago. As another person put it over on BF a while back, it is incumbent on LEADERS to do whatever they can to avoid even a WHIFF of an appearance of impropriety. To help improve the process, a leader like Andy should have known better, especially after the first goat rodeo with the 27mm ruling.

But, again, I agree with you: the PROCESS is the flaw, not some individual plot.

[Bill Miller]

I guess that was a poorly worded statement. What I should have said is I feel they got a raw deal, not in the fact that the car was reigned in, but in the way the changes were implemented. To force them to install a still unproven, lightly tested, brand new (to IT anyway) technology that is currently being supplied by one vendor, who doesn&#39;t even have the proper sized item in stock, and to have it all done in about five weeks is a little much to ask IMHO. I&#39;m sure if we look at it objectively there are few of us who wouldn&#39;t be pissed if it were our cars.

I really like the suggestion about giving the BMW guys an option - weight or SIR - for the remainder of this season, with the stipulation that SIRs will be required beginning 1/1/07.
[/b]


Earl,

I pretty much agree w/ you. The E36 crowd is getting boned w/ this implementation. That&#39;s not to say that the car doesn&#39;t need to fit the process, just that the moving target date and size are BS, especially since you can&#39;t even buy a 29mm SIR from Raetech today.

I&#39;m not real crazy about the either/or option, and I really don&#39;t like making the SIR required next year, if you&#39;re going to give people the weight option this year. As has been stated, shock valving and spring rates will be different, w/ the added weight. To make folks spend the money to figure out what they need, and implement it for this year, only to have it tossed in January, is not right, IMO. If you&#39;re going to open the door for the weight, that door needs to stay open. You could possibly put something in there that says that any car registered after 1/1/07 would need to run the SIR, but I&#39;m not really crazy about that idea either. For all we know, 29mm may not be the right size SIR.

[e36its]

I&#39;m not real crazy about the either/or option[/b]Bill --

Could you elaborate on this a bit? Are you concerned that it&#39;s creating a situation that&#39;s unique to the E36? If so, I&#39;d completely agree with you -- but no more than having an SIR spec&#39;d created a unique situation. I like the idea that there exists a way for the shoestring guy to run without big expenditure. The SIR might be a gift to the BMW community afterall, but the implementation headaches and unknowns certainly aren&#39;t.

tom

[Andy Bettencourt]

Harry,

You have to pay attention to the posts. You attribute that quote to Steve and it was actually Earl. Steve has a hard time with the quote function :)

The flaw Eal talked about was the implementation of the SIR, not the weight setting &#39;process&#39; we have been using for a couple years which has proven solid.

Frankly, the BMW is the ONLY car that hasn&#39;t gone through this process.

How many times do we have to admit the SIR decision and implementation turned out to be a train wreck? The CRB is doing it&#39;s best to fix it. While I may not want SIR&#39;s in IT, I do want what is best for IT and I hope this works out.

I think &#39;leader&#39; is a strong word for a guy who is 1 of 9 on a committee that advises a committee of 7 that reports to a Board of what - 7? Plllease. Should anyone who has a car or has a freind who has an car in ITS not be part of the DEBATE? Give us a break. All the BMW guys I have talked to over the last couple years fully understand what is going on, like it or not at least they understand.

[seckerich]

Andy is right--I suck with the quote function--so I just cut and paste when I don&#39;t want the whole mess. :P We are where we are today because a misclassification was allowed to remain in place for so long. I can assure Harry and the rest that Andy is not even close to the reason this is being pushed. I think poor Phil Clark left to keep from receiving one more phone call. The car was not such an obvious overdog until some of the other changes allowed in IT helped it a little more than most (Insert Motec, Vanos tinkering, creative factory cams) and it fell into the hands of those that had the time and resources to develope it to the fullest. On paper, on track, and any formula you want to use it is a great car and is head above anything else in the class. People built them in good faith to the rules in place at the time and got the wins to prove it. Now we are doing real changes to IT to level the classes as has never been done in the past and the mistakes of past boards are very evident. Was it lack of caring or knowledge--who knows --but we are here now and it is time to fix it. New territory but it is better to be a part of the fix and work for the best outcome rather than get irate that anything is being done. It did go on way too long for whatever reason and the BMW drivers have a right to feel picked on--now work for a solution and give it a try before you go AWAL.

[Bill Miller]

First, Bill Miller, I also wish "New Guy" would be outed. But I seriously doubt it will happen, sadly.

Second, Steve, I actually agree with your ponts above. I do not think anyone created a conspiracy to benefit an individual. The PROCESS is flawed from start to finish, as you said so well. And one of the things that has contributed to the process sucking so badly is the creation & continued enhancement of an appearance of conflicts of interes by Andy&#39;s involvement. Unfortunately, appearances easily become reality...and just saying "all my friends like me & say I am honest" does not cut it as a response. Andy should have recused himself long ago. As another person put it over on BF a while back, it is incumbent on LEADERS to do whatever they can to avoid even a WHIFF of an appearance of impropriety. To help improve the process, a leader like Andy should have known better, especially after the first goat rodeo with the 27mm ruling.

Bu, again, I agree with you: the PROCESS is the flaw, not some individual plot.
[/b]


HB,

The fact that NG hasn&#39;t been outed speaks volumes. I&#39;ve got an idea who it is, but it&#39;s only an idea, and I&#39;m not going to risk slandering someone that I&#39;m not sure about.

You really need to get past this conflict thing w/ Andy. It&#39;s become an obsession w/ you. And it&#39;s not a case of "all my friends like me & say I am honest". It&#39;s a case of his colleagues saying that there&#39;s no conflict of interest. That&#39;s a significant difference. Add to that that you&#39;ve had a CRB member state it as well. If that&#39;s not good enough for you, then you&#39;ve got bigger issues w/ different people.

[lateapex911]

First, Bill Miller, I also wish "New Guy" would be outed. But I seriously doubt it will happen, sadly.

...and just saying "all my friends like me & say I am honest" does not cut it as a response. Andy should have recused himself long ago. As another person put it over on BF a while back, .......[/b]


I looked for the NG post and couldn&#39;t find it..either I missed it, or how do we know he hasn&#39;t been booted?
Maybe the webmaster gave him a 90% warning so that he could apologise, which would be in order.

Further, it is ironic to me (a favorite word of an active poster) that the cries of foul are aimed at Andy, who&#39;s major error in this entire debacle, has been his attemp to explain and make the actions as transpearent as he can.

The irony is that I actualy know more about what really happened, and can see that without Andy&#39;s actions, things that are now being complained about could have been worse!

The simple fact of the matter is that he is an advisor. His biases and interests ae known. The voting bodies are the actual creators of direction. They listen to 9 opinions, and they make their decision. Then 7 more guys listen to the CRBs case, and then THEY vote. Again, it is ironic, that in this ONE case, they (the CRB) decided to go in a direction that was different than what the ITAC wanted, yet Andy gets the blame. Too funny. Well, not funny, it&#39;s sad actually.

It is disturbing that accusations are made..... certainly DD &#39;s comments were so far out of line as to enrage other non involved persons....when the structure and the organization of the boards has previously been shown to account for, and mitigate any one persons self serving interests. The &#39;appearance&#39; arguement holds no water once you understand the actual structure.


HB, what is your screen name over on BF?

[zracre]

I applaud Andy for being so active and helpful on this message board. He does not have to say anything to us but he chooses to try and be helpful and explain it as best as possible. There are many on here that cannot comprehend this and start bashing people with fake names (cowards). If you have an opinion this is the place to state it for debate, but c&#39;mon have the b@!!$ to give your name!! NG is the type to take you out in the corner and say it was someone else and throw 500 excuses as to why you were driving so bad to cause the crash!! I call it the condo commando attitude. Nosy in everyones business but not willing to help...just make demands and act bossy.

[Knestis]

<beavis> Heh, heh - he said "BF" Heh, heh... </beavis>


... Further, it is ironic to me (a favorite word of an active poster) that the cries of foul are aimed at Andy, who&#39;s major error in this entire debacle, has been his attemp to explain and make the actions as transpearent as he can. ...[/b]

An excellent point. I don&#39;t hear anyone bashing on individual ITAC members not active in this forum.

K

[stevel]

...

[Doc Bro]

I know when I see Andy at NHIS this spring I will personnally give him a slap upside the head!!

WHY?

Because he is a nice guy to a fault.....I absolutely applaud his patience and dedication to this and MANY other subjects. He has been FORTHRIGHT and ADMITTED that things were flawed. It takes a big man to do this.

They are ADVISORS not rule makers!! DUH!!

Great points by Kirk, no "silent" ITAC members have taken the lambasting that these guys that are our friends have. Very shameful how we behave.

I&#39;m dumber for having lurked on this topic.

I&#39;m sorry to AB, JG, DJ and any other ITAC friends who&#39;ve been beat up on this thread.

Andy, your slap is coming!!

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, this topic has run it&#39;s self dead. Thanks to all who support the groups trying to fix this mistake. The CRB will do there best to be fair to all. Having said that, you can never please everyone. Here is a post from BF.com from today. This person has been active in this discussion on this site and has seen all our responses.


I got some good information from a person on the Solo II board about this whole situation.

He stated that the SCCA main board is concerned about road racers leaving the SCCA and that it is a hot topic right now.

I have stated before that I am leaving the SCCA for other sanctioning bodies and I would ask the ITS BMW racers to consider the same. He stated that us leaving and stating as such to our regional executive would have a much greater effect than letter writing, fighting with the ITAC/CRB etc.

The CRB and ITAC and the board has made its decision that cannot be supported by facts and don&#39;t seem to care that they can&#39;t. They are just trying to find any reason to support their unsupportable decision. The decision to make the E36 BMW&#39;s uncompetitive was made, then they tried to find any reason to support it.

Any letter writing, etc. now will go on deaf years since they don&#39;t care that they can&#39;t support their decision. The decision was not made rationally, therefore, it won&#39;t be undone by rational argument. We already won the argument.

If you look at it another way, if we all leave, then they don&#39;t have anyone to beat up on. The purpose of screwing us was to have us stay around and become easy pickings for them and blame us for being slow and getting beat, when it was actually the SIR that did it.

They want us to stay around to just beat up on us. By racing them handicapped, we are doing exactly what they want. If they can&#39;t beat up on us now, what fun would it be for them to race each other?

I am not saying you SHOULD not run with the SCCA. I am asking you to reconsider and consider the points I made.

I would encourage all of you to consider NASA as I found them very accomidating in Texas and actually seem to want us to race with them. What a concept?[/b]

I fear we can never do a good job explaining the overall intent...and for that I feel like I have personally failed.

[Harry Balszac]

Jake, you already have my real name, my photo, and my occupation. I don&#39;t think knowing my user name on BF is either relevant to this discussion (hell, neither was my name or face or occupation...the search for them speaks volumes about those doing the searching) or any of your damned business. Way to keep focusing on the irrelevant.

Bill, you may be right, or maybe not. All I can say is that, from the beginning, Andy&#39;s posture on this issue has been very...unusual. His involvement, given his RX-7 business, created a cloud, and he has only accentuated it. His repeated promises/I-am-the-victim defenses/backpedals/denials/etc have only furthered this view in the minds of a large portion of the BMW community. I wish that it weren&#39;t true, since I no more want to make this issue about one person than you do. If you believe I am wrong, so be it. The larger BMW community smells something funny--not malicious, IMO, just funny--and as one mere messenger of this broad opinion, I have received little beyond being shat upon, here and elsewhere. this tells me a lot, frankly, and furthers the POV that this whole thing should be deep-sixed & RESTARTED, with a fresh clean sheet of paper, to be 100% above board in all possible ways.

Steve, my apologies--we all sometimes suck at the interweb thingies!

[lateapex911]

Andy, who was the author?? Or what post # was that??? (As you stated that this poster also posts on here, I will address my comments thusly)


The CRB and ITAC and the board has made its decision that cannot be supported by facts and don&#39;t seem to care that they can&#39;t. They are just trying to find any reason to support their unsupportable decision. The decision to make the E36 BMW&#39;s uncompetitive was made, then they tried to find any reason to support it.

Any letter writing, etc. now will go on deaf years since they don&#39;t care that they can&#39;t support their decision. The decision was not made rationally, therefore, it won&#39;t be undone by rational argument. We already won the argument.

If you look at it another way, if we all leave, then they don&#39;t have anyone to beat up on. The purpose of screwing us was to have us stay around and become easy pickings for them and blame us for being slow and getting beat, when it was actually the SIR that did it.

They want us to stay around to just beat up on us. By racing them handicapped, we are doing exactly what they want. If they can&#39;t beat up on us now, what fun would it be for them to race each other?

I am not saying you SHOULD not run with the SCCA. I am asking you to reconsider and consider the points I made.

I would encourage all of you to consider NASA as I found them very accomidating in Texas and actually seem to want us to race with them. What a concept?[/b]

I can tell you that when I read drivel like that I am infuriated!

If I wanted to make them &#39;also rans&#39;, as the writer states we do, would I have spent hundreds of MY dollars and spent days of MY life on this SIR thing??? of course not! I would have stayed home and bought an X box and video game and practieced for Road Atlanta...or something that would benefit ME! No, I took part in this attempt to help ensure the fairest outcome for all. I tied to HELP...for the FAIREST...for ALL...nothing&#39;s perfect in this world boys, but to state that this is an attempt to single one group out and treat them UN fairly REALLY pisses me off!

Andy doesn&#39;t race in ITS, and his (part time) firm doesn&#39;t either. I race in ITA....I have no reason to desire to squash anyone in ITS. If you do due diligence, which is what a RESPONSIBLE PERSON would do before posting such paranoid drivel, you would look into the facts, and the facts are SO far from this posters foil cap world its silly.

The FACTs show that any one persons input on any board is nuetered. The FACTs show that a car that puts 205 to 210 hp down with huge torque, great trans ratios doesn&#39;t fit the process. Those are FACTS.
And the statement that the decision can&#39;t be supported by facts is a complete falsehood. How can anyone state that when we haven&#39;t SEEN all the results of the tests????

I&#39;m on the ITAC, and I don&#39;t know the all data that the CRB has!

There is NO proof that this 29mm SIR is the wrong size, that the top prep cars won&#39;t be able to make process power.
If there is POST it, or your claims otherwise are complete and utter hogwash, and insulting to rational people. In other words, put up or shut up.


We already won the argument.[/b]

Nice. How has this become Us against Them????

I&#39;m sorry, but what a bunch of self entitled internet circle jerking.

[dj10]

Bill, you may be right, or maybe not. All I can say is that, from the beginning, Andy&#39;s posture on this issue has been very...unusual. His involvement, given his RX-7 business, created a cloud, and he has only accentuated it. His repeated promises/I-am-the-victim defenses/backpedals/denials/etc have only furthered this view in the minds of a large portion of the BMW community. I wish that it weren&#39;t true, since I no more want to make this issue about one person than you do. If you believe I am wrong, so be it. The larger BMW community smells something funny--not malicious, IMO, just funny--and as one mere messenger of this broad opinion, I have received little beyond being shat upon, here and elsewhere. this tells me a lot, frankly, and furthers the POV that this whole thing should be deep-sixed & RESTARTED, with a fresh clean sheet of paper, to be 100% above board in all possible ways.
Steve, my apologies--we all sometimes suck at the interweb thingies! [/b]

To Dave Harry Balzac:
As you know I&#39;m a E36 owner, you say you smell something fishy with Andy. I seen your picture, not that I wanted to but I&#39;m glad I did. It showed me that you are young and that we should understand you for being young and impetuous. You have never commented on how you are going to be hurt by this SIR rule. You also don&#39;t understand that even I don&#39;t agree with AB sometimes he is only one voice of many. I don&#39;t give a shit if he would own a Mazda dealership if he would try and made ill rational rules he would be voted down and if he did this continuous basis he probably be asked to leave the ITAC. Dave, I&#39;m not very happy because I&#39;m going to have to spend a lot of money to set up my car with this SIR. Again, either I deal with it and run SCCA or I go elswhere. The choise is mine and yours to make. Stop attacking people, be a man and make your decision.
Good luck what ever you decide.
dj

[Andy Bettencourt]

Harry/Mike,

Are you marenelloman on BF.com? Why wouldn&#39;t you answer Jake&#39;s question? Seems weird to me.

AB

[JeffYoung]

Can some one post a link to the forum on bimmerforums where this stuff is being posted? I can&#39;t seem to find it for some reason.

[lateapex911]

Can some one post a link to the forum on bimmerforums where this stuff is being posted? I can&#39;t seem to find it for some reason.
[/b]


Here you go Jeff, but I should warn you....it&#39;s an out of body experience...LOL

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=503907

[Doc Bro]

And another thing;

HB if you want to be taken seriously clean up your image.

HB (as a screen name) is very disrespectful to our female members and my folks who also visit this site. This is a public forum. I for one personally find it offensive! Racing and family go hand in hand.

You points may get you further if you came from an angle of integrity.....which all starts with a name IMO.

Sorry, I just had to say it.

R

[lateapex911]

The above post was actually the first of two, here&#39;s the followup. It&#39;s on the last page of the above link.


I guess truth hurts and it is funny how he is so worked up over this. The fact that he cares so much about what I post pretty much proves my points are true.



Trying to shame us into staying to be slaughtered is humorous. They have been doing the 6th grade playground taunting of "you guys are scared and just taking you (sic) ball and going home" LOL What really happened is that they were not as good at the game, so they chose to kick us in the nuts, rather than becoming better players and developing their equipment. Kicking us in the nuts is easier than fixing their own shortcomings.

Like I said over there, when I get kicked in the nuts on the playground, there is no point in staying so the same people can keep kicking me in the nuts. And the referee(the CRB and the SCCA board) allows them to keep kicking us in the nuts, when they should be calling a personal foul. LOL

........
My point is that if we are not around so they can keep kicking us in the nuts, they will have to find someone new or kick each other in the nuts.

I am not running away. I chose to not let someone keep screwing me and let some 6th grade level taunting affect my decision.[/b]

This from above:

What really happened is that they were not as good at the game, so they chose to kick us in the nuts, rather than becoming better players and developing their equipment. Kicking us in the nuts is easier than fixing their own shortcomings. [/b]

yessiree...THAT&#39;s what REALLY happened! What can you say to a statement like that?

[Harry Balszac]

To Dave Harry Balzac:
As you know I&#39;m a E36 owner, you say you smell something fishy with Andy. I seen your picture, not that I wanted to but I&#39;m glad I did. It showed me that you are young and that we should understand you for being young and impetuous. You have never commented on how you are going to be hurt by this SIR rule. You also don&#39;t understand that even I don&#39;t agree with AB sometimes he is only one voice of many. I don&#39;t give a shit if he would own a Mazda dealership if he would try and made ill rational rules he would be voted down and if he did this continuous basis he probably be asked to leave the ITAC. Dave, I&#39;m not very happy because I&#39;m going to have to spend a lot of money to set up my car with this SIR. Again, either I deal with it and run SCCA or I go elswhere. The choise is mine and yours to make. Stop attacking people, be a man and make your decision.
Good luck what ever you decide.
dj
[/b]


DJ, thank you for the compliment about being young. I am in my 40&#39;s, and am heartened by that! True, I havent commented on being hurt by this because this is not about me. It is about what is right. I realize that is often subjective, and thus we are all able to express our opinions here and elsewhere.

Doc, I appreciate your position, but the name stays. Frankly, I dont care whether you take me seriously or not. No disrespect intended by saying that, but you either see my views as credible or not, and my user name is irrelevant. If it offends you, please do not read my posts.

On the larger point, I am frankly AMAZED at the immaturity of folks who are STILL preoccupied with who I am on what board, who Mike is on what board, what my real name is, etc.

As I have already stated, way to focus on the irrelevant, folks, while smokescreening the relevant. lol

[Knestis]

http://www.1millionpixel.de/img/2005-09-26---www_dontfeedthetroll_de---50x50.gif

[its66]

http://www.1millionpixel.de/img/2005-09-26---www_dontfeedthetroll_de---50x50.gif
[/b]

:happy204: :happy204:
I was growing tired of the periodical table stuff anyway...too many college memories

[DoubleD]

If you do due diligence, which is what a RESPONSIBLE PERSON would do
[/b]

You mean like testing the SIR before putting it in a recommendation?

Oh, how dare I...

[Harry Balszac]

You mean like testing the SIR before putting it in a recommendation?

Oh, how dare I...
[/b]


Game, set, match.

:smilie_pokal:

[gpeluso]

:o AB and JAKE

Quit refferring to what is going on at the BMW Forum. The SCCA is made up of members and alot of those members are spouting off on that forum. You should be happy it&#39;s mostly over there now. People have the right to bitch, yes it has gotton crazy. Being a E36 owner I am very diappointed with the decision. The main reason I bought my car is that it fit great into many clubs....BMWCCA,NASA(GTS),EMRA,and SCCA. My choice will be not to paticipate with the SIR due to the fact my car will be uncompetitve in all the other clubs,...not worth it. It is not a threat, but just a choice I am making. I fortunately own a spec miata and I plan on running it with the SCCA. I am very luck to have both. This direction is due to the CRB&#39;s decision solely. I know I am not alone. I applaud people like DJ for going through the process and hitting the dyno to figuire the SIR out for 2006 racing. This BMW guy is cheering for DJ.

Greg

[RSTPerformance]

And another thing;

HB if you want to be taken seriously clean up your image.

HB (as a screen name) is very disrespectful to our female members and my folks who also visit this site. This is a public forum. I for one personally find it offensive! Racing and family go hand in hand.

You points may get you further if you came from an angle of integrity.....which all starts with a name IMO.

Sorry, I just had to say it.

R
[/b]


Agreed 100%

I have no problem saying that I Reported the user to the webmaster. Would like to see the account frozen and allow him to open a new account with a more respectful name... Although if I were him (40 years of learning how to be respectful and mature) noticing that a few people have mentioned something maybe he will be respectful enough to do that on his own???

Raymond "My employees often ask me why I babysit them... then one of them will do something that spoils it for everyone and proves that they need to be" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

HarryB,

It is you that has something to hide when you won&#39;t tell us who you are on BF.com? I bet it is. Nobody is preoccupied with it, it is just a data point that would be useful to further understand who we are dealing with. The fact you won&#39;t answer the question is amusing.

Just to understand, how many times does anyone have to type that the SIR decision was made in haste and just plain stunk given what we know now?

Move on and work with what we know. You say start over. OK, lets do that. What should we do? The comments on BF.com quoted above prove 100% that some people just don&#39;t get it. PERIOD.

I will tell you who I am on all the BBS&#39;s I check out - "Andy Bettencourt". No cloak, no daggar.

AB

[lateapex911]

Agreed 100%

....... Although if I were him (40 years of learning how to be respectful and mature) noticing that a few people have mentioned something maybe he will be respectful enough to do that on his own???

[/b]

Methinks that Mr Balsack actually enjoys this to the nth degree, and gets a huge charge everytime somebody objects to his &#39;funny&#39; name. I doubt you will see any such action from him.

[Harry Balszac]

HarryB,

It is you that has something to hide when you won&#39;t tell us who you are on BF.com? I bet it is. Nobody is preoccupied with it, it is just a data point that would be useful to further understand who we are dealing with. The fact you won&#39;t answer the question is amusing.

Just to understand, how many times does anyone have to type that the SIR decision was made in haste and just plain stunk given what we know now?

Move on and work with what we know. You say start over. OK, lets do that. What should we do? The comments on BF.com quoted above prove 100% that some people just don&#39;t get it. PERIOD.

I will tell you who I am on all the BBS&#39;s I check out - "Andy Bettencourt". No cloak, no daggar.

AB
[/b]


Andy, that is the biggest load of crap I have seen yet in this thread. Let me see if I have this right: You boys had a hissy fit when you didn&#39;t know my real name. I gave it to you willingly.

Then you or one of your cronies felt compelled to dig up AND POST my occupation, my face, and disparaging sexual innuendos about my state of residence.

But that is not enough, I see. Now, it is IMPERATIVE that you also know what user name I have on BF.com?

Andy...do you read your posts before you post them?

Do you have ANY idea how this makes you look? Seriously, do you??

And why would I give 2 turds about your user name(s)?

Here is a hint, Andy: my user name on BF.com has 5 letters and 1 number.

Happy now?

Now, scurry off and find even more irrelevant crap about me that you can focus on while smokescreening the real issue. Why not ask my wife&#39;s name? What city in Texas I live in? How many children I have? My ATM password?

Seriously, Andy....you need to seek help. Look a few posts above & reread Dave Dillehay&#39;s post. And reread it again. And again.

Focus on THAT, and not on what additional personal info on me that is none of your Goddamned business.

Andy...your behavior has become very alarming. I am cut & pasting this entire message, and yours above, into a letter to the SCCA board of directors. You need to find something else to do with your time besides being part of Club Racing leadership.

Lateapex, no I don&#39;t. Sorry, but my user name is 100% irrelevant. And your maniacal focus on it says a lot.

[Bill Miller]

Bill --

Could you elaborate on this a bit? Are you concerned that it&#39;s creating a situation that&#39;s unique to the E36? If so, I&#39;d completely agree with you -- but no more than having an SIR spec&#39;d created a unique situation. I like the idea that there exists a way for the shoestring guy to run without big expenditure. The SIR might be a gift to the BMW community afterall, but the implementation headaches and unknowns certainly aren&#39;t.

tom
[/b]

Tom,

I thought I explained why I didn&#39;t like the either / or option, but maybe I didn&#39;t do that well at it. I definately don&#39;t like E/O now, w/ only one of the options in the not too distant future. Even if that&#39;s not the case, monitoring the E/O just ads something else for tech to do. Not that they can&#39;t, but we&#39;ve all heard about putting anything else on the plate (no pun intended).

I totally agree that the SIR sets a bad precedent in IT. If you&#39;ve got cars that need SIRs, because the spec weight would be too high, they should be in a higher class. You guys have to remember, the ITAC didn&#39;t put restrictors in their PCA proposal, that one was on the CRB. Oh, if there&#39;s no higher class, either the car doesn&#39;t belong in IT, or you need a higher class (I think I&#39;ve made my preference rather obvious).

[lateapex911]

:o AB and JAKE

Quit refferring to what is going on at the BMW Forum. The SCCA is made up of members and alot of those members are spouting off on that forum. You should be happy it&#39;s mostly over there now. People have the right to bitch, yes it has gotton crazy. [/b]

Well, it&#39;s in the public domain. I bent over backwards trying to make this happen correctly. It hasn&#39;t been easy, but then I read stuff like this, from a guy in Northern California, who owns a variety of cars, all from 1978, including a Mazda RX3Sp, who says:


(from BF, same thread as re earlier.)This is exactly how "racers" keep themselves in the back of the pack. These ITAC guys, are exactly that: Losers. Not because of any decision they made, but their processes are so flawed, that it is very obvious why they have not been successful in life or racing.[/b]

Yea, thanks for that. Glad I tried to help.




This BMW guy is cheering for DJ.

Greg
[/b]

This Mazda guy is too.

(but don&#39;t expect me to buy the M3 I have always wanted to and run over to BF to chat about it......I&#39;ll stick to my 911.)

[Bill Miller]

These ITAC guys, are exactly that: Losers. Not because of any decision they made, but their processes are so flawed, that it is very obvious why they have not been successful in life or racing.
[/b]

Simply frickin&#39; amazing. Talk about not showing a group in the best light. :unsure:

[imported_Webmaster]

:018:
Can you guys please discuss cars instead of personal gripes?
I said please. I&#39;m not interested in who is right or wrong... at all.
You&#39;re wasting my bandwidth. Go start an SCCAFight.com site for this.

Warning #1

[buldogge]

Thank you...

Now...about that SIR dyno testing info/results/charts/WHATEVER...??? :rolleyes:



:018:
Can you guys please discuss cars instead of personal gripes?
I said please. I&#39;m not interested in who is right or wrong... at all.
You&#39;re wasting my bandwidth. Go start an SCCAFight.com site for this.

Warning #1
[/b]

[Harry Balszac]

Thank you...

Now...about that SIR dyno testing info/results/charts/WHATEVER...??? :rolleyes:
[/b]


Right on, Mark, and thanks, Admins. THAT is all I have been asking for from my first post in this thread.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Right on, Mark, and thanks, Admins. THAT is all I have been asking for from my first post in this thread. [/b]

Actually, your first post mistakingly told us that Bill never took shots at me - which were summarily shot down by example.

But seriously folks...

The ITAC wants the data to be released like everyone else. We are taking the heat for it afterall! Point your poison arrows at them if it doesn&#39;t come out.

If anyone would care to debate a different solution, using what we now know as a baseline, why don&#39;t we let this one die and start a new thread?

AB

[erlrich]

I would really be curious to hear, from the BMW guys ONLY, what alternatives they would consider viable to bring the power of their cars down to the desired maximum hp figure (which was, I believe, 180 rwhp? - correct me if I&#39;m wrong). Assume the alternative is 300 lbs. of extra weight. I really don&#39;t care about whether you believe the hp figure is fair, or whether the weight is fair, but let&#39;s just for the sake of argument assume that we have two choices: the stated weight or the stated max hp. What would you guys do?

Please, please, please can we keep the responses civil?

Thanks
Earl

[Harry Balszac]

I would really be curious to hear, from the BMW guys ONLY, what alternatives they would consider viable to bring the power of their cars down to the desired maximum hp figure (which was, I believe, 180 rwhp? - correct me if I&#39;m wrong). Assume the alternative is 300 lbs. of extra weight. I really don&#39;t care about whether you believe the hp figure is fair, or whether the weight is fair, but let&#39;s just for the sake of argument assume that we have two choices: the stated weight or the stated max hp. What would you guys do?

Please, please, please can we keep the responses civil?

Thanks
Earl
[/b]


If it were JUST those 2 choices? A 29mm SIR that does not work as advertised OR a 300lb chunk of lead?

I would do neither, and run in BMWCCA and NASA instead.

[JeffYoung]

Earl, not a BMW guy, and not really weighing in on this, but some rough numbers:

1. Mazda RX7 power to weight: 2680/175 rwhp - 15.3

2. Porsche 944 power to weight: 2535 (is that right)/155 rwhp - 16.3

3. BMW unrestricted: 2850/195 rwhp - 14.6 OR 2850/210 (depending on who you believe) - 13.5

4. BMW "restricted": 2850/180rwhp - 15.8

5. BMW "weighted": 3150/195rwhp - 16.1 OR 3150/210 - 15

6. GSR: 2750/175 - 15.5

7. For laughs, my car; 2560/160 - 16

[Bill Miller]

If it were JUST those 2 choices? A 29mm SIR that does not work as advertised OR a 300lb chunk of lead?

I would do neither, and run in BMWCCA and NASA instead.
[/b]

:happy204: :023:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Earl, not a BMW guy, and not really weighing in on this, but some rough numbers:

1. Mazda RX7 power to weight: 2680/175 rwhp - 15.3

2. Porsche 944 power to weight: 2535 (is that right)/155 rwhp - 16.3

3. BMW unrestricted: 2850/195 rwhp - 14.6 OR 2850/210 (depending on who you believe) - 13.5

4. BMW "restricted": 2850/180rwhp - 15.8

5. BMW "weighted": 3150/195rwhp - 16.1 OR 3150/210 - 15

6. GSR: 2750/175 - 15.5

7. For laughs, my car; 2560/160 - 16

[/b]

GSR is 2690 for a 15.3 figure.

[buldogge]

...and...ummm...there&#39;s the little problem of Mazda RX-7 2680/185 rwhp (remember...we only deal with the best examples here at IT.com) - 14.5

and then there&#39;s:

BMW unrestricted 3000/195 rwhp - 15.4 (hmmm) (same as E46 weight)

or

BMW 29mm restricted with the newly discovered across the board 20hp lost (as conveyed by Bob) 2850/175 rwhp - 16.3

???



Earl, not a BMW guy, and not really weighing in on this, but some rough numbers:

1. Mazda RX7 power to weight: 2680/175 rwhp - 15.3

2. Porsche 944 power to weight: 2535 (is that right)/155 rwhp - 16.3

3. BMW unrestricted: 2850/195 rwhp - 14.6 OR 2850/210 (depending on who you believe) - 13.5

4. BMW "restricted": 2850/180rwhp - 15.8

5. BMW "weighted": 3150/195rwhp - 16.1 OR 3150/210 - 15

6. GSR: 2750/175 - 15.5

7. For laughs, my car; 2560/160 - 16
[/b]

[Bill Miller]

Mark,

If you&#39;re going to consider the best example, you need to up that 195 rwhp figure on the E36 325 to 205-210 at least.

[seckerich]

And if you want to have a real level headed discussion you must include those HP numbers, approximate power band it will cross (not just peak) and the TORQUE numbers and the width of that power band. Then we have an honest discussion and somewher to go. Just an observation from an innocent bystander. :rolleyes: Sorry - can&#39;t keep a straight face with that one.

[buldogge]

Do you have the proof and charts on that Bill...

I&#39;m not trying to be combative...but...we haven&#39;t seen any such dyno...anywhere...only rumor and conjecture.



Mark,

If you&#39;re going to consider the best example, you need to up that 195 rwhp figure on the E36 325 to 205-210 at least.
[/b]


Are the rolleyes for my text or for your "innocent bystander" status :P

???



And if you want to have a real level headed discussion you must include those HP numbers, approximate power band it will cross (not just peak) and the TORQUE numbers and the width of that power band. Then we have an honest discussion and somewher to go. Just an observation from an innocent bystander. :rolleyes: Sorry - can&#39;t keep a straight face with that one.
[/b]

[Eagle7]

...and...ummm...there&#39;s the little problem of Mazda RX-7 2680/185 rwhp (remember...we only deal with the best examples here at IT.com) - 14.5
[/b]
Is that a for-real number? Where did it come from? I think the highest I had ever heard was < 175.

[JeffYoung]

And gear ratios (had no idea the E36 was 1:1 fifth gear), and suspension, aero and brakes.

From my perspective, the E36 has the raw numbers and looks like the king of the hill. The RX7 for some reason is a great race car and better than the numbers show.

But in looking at the "raw" hp/weight ratio, the E36 + 150 pounds certainly appears to make ITS a level playing field (rough but level) in the 14.5 to 15.5 power to weight ratio.

Jeff

[Bill Miller]

Do you have the proof and charts on that Bill...

I&#39;m not trying to be combative...but...we haven&#39;t seen any such dyno...anywhere...only rumor and conjecture.
Are the rolleyes for my text or for your "innocent bystander" status :P

???
[/b]

Mark,

We&#39;ve seen a sheet on a motor that made 195 that was admittedly not a top-level and max-bling effort. I believe the ITAC has rec&#39;d sheets in the 205-210 whp range.

But, I&#39;m sure not going to hang my hat on a couple of dyno charts.

[seckerich]

Do you have the proof and charts on that Bill...

I&#39;m not trying to be combative...but...we haven&#39;t seen any such dyno...anywhere...only rumor and conjecture.
Are the rolleyes for my text or for your "innocent bystander" status :P

???
[/b]
My innocent bystander!!

[gpeluso]

Is that a for-real number? Where did it come from? I think the highest I had ever heard was < 175.
[/b]


AB claimed 180-182 whp for the RX7. I am sure he will agree.

Greg

[Andy Bettencourt]

AB claimed 180-182 whp for the RX7. I am sure he will agree.

Greg [/b]

That is indeed the largest number we have ever seen on a DynoJet.

[erlrich]

If it were JUST those 2 choices? A 29mm SIR that does not work as advertised OR a 300lb chunk of lead?

I would do neither, and run in BMWCCA and NASA instead.
[/b]

Hmmm... maybe my wording was a little unclear - what I was asking was what ALTERNATIVES would the BMW guys offer. As in how would you choose to restrict power output to 180rwhp, other than with a "29mm SIR that does not work as advertised", assuming you absolutely had to.

[Harry Balszac]

Hmmm... maybe my wording was a little unclear - what I was asking was what ALTERNATIVES would the BMW guys offer. As in how would you choose to restrict power output to 180rwhp, other than with a "29mm SIR that does not work as advertised", assuming you absolutely had to.
[/b]


I am sorry---I must have misunderstood the question.

I think Dave Dillehay made a good suggestion regarding weight in the 150lb range. Since so much of the alleged "formula" is subjective, IMO, we need to get the subjectivity & arbitrariness out of it.

A lot of very experienced racers say that 10 pounds is like 1 HP (approximately). So, if we take the assumption that most well-tuned E36 motors are making 195 HP, a 150 lb lead weight would dunk 15 HP, thus making 180 HP.

Of course, there are motors making less, and there may or may not be motors making more. But 195 has been thrown around repeatedly, so why not take 15 off by using 150 lbs of weight?

[JeffYoung]

This non-BMW ITS driver would be perfectly happy to see the E36 at 3000 lbs and no restrictor for this year, with the option for a further (weight, not restrictor) adjustment if necessary.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am sorry---I must have misunderstood the question.

I think Dave Dillehay made a good suggestion regarding weight in the 150lb range. Since so much of the alleged "formula" is subjective, IMO, we need to get the subjectivity & arbitrariness out of it.

A lot of very experienced racers say that 10 pounds is like 1 HP (approximately). So, if we take the assumption that most well-tuned E36 motors are making 195 HP, a 150 lb lead weight would dunk 15 HP, thus making 180 HP.

Of course, there are motors making less, and there may or may not be motors making more. But 195 has been thrown around repeatedly, so why not take 15 off by using 150 lbs of weight? [/b]

Harry,

The counter to that excellent suggestion is that the gold-standard for these is 210whp. So if you want to get to 180, you have to take away 30hp. And using the 10 to 1 formula, that is 300lbs. And to add to that, 30whp is approx 36 flywheel horsepower which would be 360lbs. Seeminly, this model supports a process weight of 3150-3200 - no?

You have to class based on potential, not on &#39;most well tuned&#39; examples.
************

Jeff,

Your suggestion smacks of comp adjustments. The math is either right or it is wrong. The only way to move from your 3000lb suggestion (BTW what do E46 323 owners say with their 172 stock hp at 3000?) is to use race results (comp adjustment) which we know is impossible.

[Harry Balszac]

Gold standard? LOL.

Andy, please prove that the majority of E36 motors in ITS are producting 210 RWHP.

I will save you some time: THEY ARE NOT.

Your "gold standard" is subjective nonsense, with all due respect, and has NEVER been proven. EVER.

So let&#39;s get past it & back to reality. 195 RWHP is a reasonable number that I would put money on being under the largest part of the bell curve. Work with that, OK? and not some make-believe number that a lot of the BMW community feels was made up out of whole cloth to justify punishing the E36.

Not saying this is right or wrong--just saying that perception is reality.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Gold standard? LOL.

Andy, please prove that the majority of E36 motors in ITS are producting 210 RWHP.

I will save you some time: THEY ARE NOT.

Your "gold standard" is subjective nonsense, with all due respect, and has NEVER been proven. EVER.

So let&#39;s get past it & back to reality. 195 RWHP is a reasonable number that I would put money on being under the largest part of the bell curve. Work with that, OK? and not some make-believe number that a lot of the BMW community feels was made up out of whole cloth to justify punishing the E36.

Not saying this is right or wrong--just saying that perception is reality. [/b]

Harry,

I never said that the majority of E36 owners are putting that to the ground. Never been proven? Call Sunbelt and call Mike V at ISC. Prove to yourself what can happen when you spend the money and dedicate the time. I am very sorry that you don&#39;t believe but I can&#39;t help you futher. There are people on this forum who have SEEN it first hand and there are people on this forum who have been told by owners of the car(s) THEMSELVES that 210 was absolute max.

(On edit - if you use 210whp to class this car which some belive and some don&#39;t, process weight goes to 3300 - getting into the rediculous obviously. Some mitigation of weight HAS to be assumed)

I already explained, you can&#39;t class cars based on the largest are under the bell curve. You have to class on ultimate prep. That is the only think that is fair to all.

Perception is not reality when the data is true but just not well known by those who haven&#39;t done the work. One of these &#39;mythical&#39; beasts was tuned on the same dyno I run on. I will ask the owner permission to post his sheet. Then I am sure you will ask for a background check on the owner of the dyno shop to make sure he or his family has never owned an RX-7.... :wacko:

[Harry Balszac]

Andy, I am not going to argue what-if with you any longer. There is ZERO evidence beyond circumstantial/hearsay of 210 RWHP ITS E36&#39;s that SCCA has produced to justify this claim. ZERO.

Now....I am calmly asking that Dave&#39;s idea be tried. Instead of going down the El Stupido path that has already produced so much misery, false promises, and bad blood...and which is going to send a large % of BMW drivers away from ITS rather than spend huge $ on an unproven (and still unavailable) concept that must be in place in a month, why not try 150 lbs and SEE WHAT HAPPENS?

Novel concept, I know.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, I am with you, but here is what I am saying: in order to cut a "deal" to resolve this mess (which is not the ITAC&#39;s fault or the CRB&#39;s fault ), have the BMW contingent, the ITAC and the other ITS drivers on the board propose a compromise resolution of 150 lbs and no SIR. That&#39;s all. Not that it is the perfect the solution, and doesn&#39;t fit the process, but neither does the SIR in my view.

I&#39;m out of this thread, made the mistake of jumping in when I shouldn&#39;t have.

Jeff

[Bill Miller]

Gold standard? LOL.

Andy, please prove that the majority of E36 motors in ITS are producting 210 RWHP.

I will save you some time: THEY ARE NOT.

Your "gold standard" is subjective nonsense, with all due respect, and has NEVER been proven. EVER.

So let&#39;s get past it & back to reality. 195 RWHP is a reasonable number that I would put money on being under the largest part of the bell curve. Work with that, OK? and not some make-believe number that a lot of the BMW community feels was made up out of whole cloth to justify punishing the E36.

Not saying this is right or wrong--just saying that perception is reality.
[/b]


Hairy,

It has nothing to do w/ &#39;the majority&#39;, or what&#39;s &#39;under the largest part of the bell curve&#39;, it has to do w/ what a full-tilt effort can squeeze out. That&#39;s not just for the E36, or ITS, that&#39;s for ALL OF IT! How the hell do you spec something based on &#39;middle of the road&#39;? You want to talk about something that&#39;s really going to widen the gap between the haves and the have nots!

BTW, since you&#39;ve got info on all the E36 ITS development projects out there, can you please share it w/ the rest of us? After all, you KNOW that no ITS-legal E36 has EVER made 210 whp. Why don&#39;t you call up James Clay or Will Turner and as them just how much power a no-expense-spared program will make? That 195hp number that you want people to use was from an admitted less than full-tilt program. You want a situation where guys can&#39;t tweak every last bit of hp out of the motor? If so, maybe you should go run SS or SM. Oh, I&#39;m sorry, I forgot that those guys spend piles of money to squeeze every last bit of grunt out of thier lumps too. In fact, they probably have to spend more, because they have to parts-bin blueprint stuff.

You are the one that needs to get past this stuff.



Andy, I am not going to argue what-if with you any longer. There is ZERO evidence beyond circumstantial/hearsay of 210 RWHP ITS E36&#39;s that SCCA has produced to justify this claim. ZERO.

Now....I am calmly asking that Dave&#39;s idea be tried. Instead of going down the El Stupido path that has already produced so much misery, false promises, and bad blood...and which is going to send a large % of BMW drivers away from ITS rather than spend huge $ on an unproven (and still unavailable) concept that must be in place in a month, why not try 150 lbs and SEE WHAT HAPPENS?

Novel concept, I know.
[/b]

Because we don&#39;t operate under a system of competition adjustments in IT. Sorry that that is so hard for you to comprehend.

Jeff,

I understand what you&#39;re saying, but letting a group of drivers hold the SCCA hostage, and to just &#39;cut a deal&#39; sets a REALLY bad precedent.

[mlytle]

Hmmm... maybe my wording was a little unclear - what I was asking was what ALTERNATIVES would the BMW guys offer. As in how would you choose to restrict power output to 180rwhp, other than with a "29mm SIR that does not work as advertised", assuming you absolutely had to.
[/b]

maybe i am sounding like a broken record here..

c/ none of the above. zero desire to restrict power or increase weight.


d/ add a new class above its and put the e36 in it at 2750lbs with no restrictor. who cares if it is a one car class for now. classify new cars into it over time at the perf standard the formula for the e36 in that configuration creates. do it now....


and all you guys trying to toss around whp figures aren&#39;t going to get anywhere because you haven&#39;t set a standard dyno type or condition for comparison. 190-195 on a mustang ain&#39;t the same as 190-195 on a dynojet.

[dj10]

[quote]
There are people on this forum who have SEEN it first hand and there are people on this forum who have been told by owners of the car(s) THEMSELVES that 210 was absolute max.
/quote]

AB or anyone with knowledge of this, for clairfication, @210 rwhp, was this BMW on what kind of Dyno, and was this with Motec?
Thanks
dj

[Harry Balszac]

Hairy,

It has nothing to do w/ &#39;the majority&#39;, or what&#39;s &#39;under the largest part of the bell curve&#39;, it has to do w/ what a full-tilt effort can squeeze out. That&#39;s not just for the E36, or ITS, that&#39;s for ALL OF IT! How the hell do you spec something based on &#39;middle of the road&#39;? You want to talk about something that&#39;s really going to widen the gap between the haves and the have nots!

BTW, since you&#39;ve got info on all the E36 ITS development projects out there, can you please share it w/ the rest of us? After all, you KNOW that no ITS-legal E36 has EVER made 210 whp. Why don&#39;t you call up James Clay or Will Turner and as them just how much power a no-expense-spared program will make? That 195hp number that you want people to use was from an admitted less than full-tilt program. You want a situation where guys can&#39;t tweak every last bit of hp out of the motor? If so, maybe you should go run SS or SM. Oh, I&#39;m sorry, I forgot that those guys spend piles of money to squeeze every last bit of grunt out of thier lumps too. In fact, they probably have to spend more, because they have to parts-bin blueprint stuff.

You are the one that needs to get past this stuff.

Because we don&#39;t operate under a system of competition adjustments in IT. Sorry that that is so hard for you to comprehend.

[/b]


Bill, why you gotta be an azzhole about it? I was asked for my OPINION and I gave it. Please take a deep breath before you blow an o-ring. :018:

1) I did not say there are no motors making 210. I specifically said that SCCA has produced no evidence of any, and yet Andy keeps calling 210 the alleged "gold standard". If there is evidence, produce it, or STFU. It is that simple. Until there is proof, on a dyno that other cars are also run on, it is an imaginary number, and you know it. As such, I am PROPOSING that 195 be the pre-target, add 150 lbs, and still arrive at the 180 post-target.

2) No comp adjustments in IT? Then, pray tell, what the hell is this exercise about, anyway? Come on, man---read your posts before posting them, please. 300 lbs (or 150 lbs) or a 29mm SIR is exactly that--a competition adjustment because folks think the E36 is an overdog on track.

Sheesh...

[seckerich]

Andy, I am with you, but here is what I am saying: in order to cut a "deal" to resolve this mess (which is not the ITAC&#39;s fault or the CRB&#39;s fault ), have the BMW contingent, the ITAC and the other ITS drivers on the board propose a compromise resolution of 150 lbs and no SIR. That&#39;s all. Not that it is the perfect the solution, and doesn&#39;t fit the process, but neither does the SIR in my view.

I&#39;m out of this thread, made the mistake of jumping in when I shouldn&#39;t have.

Jeff
[/b]
With all due respect Jeff, it is the "cutting of deals" that has us in this position. Every time this car has been dealt with or ignored--pick the year--the drivers scream bloody murder and the powers that be wimp out. Do not even suggest that it happen again. It needs to get the same process that all of IT got and see where it falls. If they screwed the pooch--then fix it with the errors and omissions clause.



maybe i am sounding like a broken record here..

c/ none of the above. zero desire to restrict power or increase weight.
d/ add a new class above its and put the e36 in it at 2750lbs with no restrictor. who cares if it is a one car class for now. classify new cars into it over time at the perf standard the formula for the e36 in that configuration creates. do it now....
and all you guys trying to toss around whp figures aren&#39;t going to get anywhere because you haven&#39;t set a standard dyno type or condition for comparison. 190-195 on a mustang ain&#39;t the same as 190-195 on a dynojet.
[/b]
Spec BMW--what a novel idea. Sounds familiar. I will get permission from the owner to post a dyno sheet of a 198 dynojet motor with no vanos control and a chip--no motec.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, why you gotta be an azzhole about it? I was asked for my OPINION and I gave it. Please take a deep breath before you blow an o-ring. :018:

1) I did not say there are no motors making 210. I specifically said that SCCA has produced no evidence of any, and yet Andy keeps calling 210 the alleged "gold standard". If there is evidence, produce it, or STFU. It is that simple. Until there is proof, on a dyno that other cars are also run on, it is an imaginary number, and you know it. As such, I am PROPOSING that 195 be the pre-target, add 150 lbs, and still arrive at the 180 post-target.

2) No comp adjustments in IT? Then, pray tell, what the hell is this exercise about, anyway? Come on, man---read your posts before posting them, please. 300 lbs (or 150 lbs) or a 29mm SIR is exactly that--a competition adjustment because folks think the E36 is an overdog on track.

Sheesh...
[/b]

Hairy,

Here&#39;s what you said:



Your "gold standard" is subjective nonsense, with all due respect, and has NEVER been proven. EVER.
[/b]

Funny, I don&#39;t see "SCCA" in that statement anywhere. Both Andy and I have given you sources to contact to find out what&#39;s possible out of a full-tilt E36 program. Rather than availing yourself of that information, you&#39;d rather continue to rant. You&#39;ve already admitted that 195 whp is more a &#39;middle of the road&#39; (greatest area under the curve is what you said, IIRC). Why the hell should one car be spec&#39;d on a median number, when the rest are held to a max-out standard? The spoiled-brat stereotype of BMW owners seems to not totally w/o some validity.


2) No comp adjustments in IT? Then, pray tell, what the hell is this exercise about, anyway? Come on, man---read your posts before posting them, please. 300 lbs (or 150 lbs) or a 29mm SIR is exactly that--a competition adjustment because folks think the E36 is an overdog on track.[/b]

I quoted this again, because it&#39;s clear evidence that you just haven&#39;t gathered any information, nor listened to anything that&#39;s been said here at all. What part of "all the cars in the ITCS got run through the process" didn&#39;t you understand? There were plenty of other cars that had weights adjusted based on the process, both up and down. The E36 didn&#39;t get an SIR because it was an overdog, it got one because the process weight is higher than the current spec weight. The car is getting special treatment w/ an SIR, and should get the process weight just like the rest of the cars in IT. You can scream all you want about the car getting picked on, but I&#39;ll let you in on something, you&#39;re probably embarrassing a lot of your fellow E36 drivers that actually do understand the process. Have you stopped and noticed that you and DD are some of the only E36 drivers that are saying that the car is being penalized because it&#39;s an overdog? Wait, do you actually race one of these cars? You sure sling a bunch of your opinion around like it&#39;s fact.

[erlrich]

d/ add a new class above its and put the e36 in it at 2750lbs with no restrictor. who cares if it is a one car class for now. classify new cars into it over time at the perf standard the formula for the e36 in that configuration creates. do it now....
[/b]

Ok, so then my next question is, why aren&#39;t the BMW guys working to get this done at the regional level? IT is a regional class after all (I know, it is actually a "national" regional class), and many regions already have classes like ITE and IT7, with the rules for those classes set at the regional level, so why not petition for ITR, or ITX, or ITwhateveryouwanttocallit? If you could get all of the BMW guys from the same region together on this, don&#39;t you think you could get it done? Marshall, you&#39;re the reigning MARRS ITS champ, surely you could rally the DC region BMW drivers to get behind this. Sure, in the beginning it would probably be a one-marque class, but I&#39;ll bet it wouldn&#39;t be long before you had some 300ZXs, 911s, 3rd gen RX7s, etc. wanting to play.

So, is there a snowball&#39;s chance of something like this getting started?

[dj10]

1) I did not say there are no motors making 210. I specifically said that SCCA has produced no evidence of any, and yet Andy keeps calling 210 the alleged "gold standard". If there is evidence, produce it, or STFU. It is that simple. Until there is proof, on a dyno that other cars are also run on, it is an imaginary number, and you know it. As such, I am PROPOSING that 195 be the pre-target, add 150 lbs, and still arrive at the 180 post-target.

2) No comp adjustments in IT? Then, pray tell, what the hell is this exercise about, anyway? Come on, man---read your posts before posting them, please. 300 lbs (or 150 lbs) or a 29mm SIR is exactly that--a competition adjustment because folks think the E36 is an overdog on track.
[/b]

Dave, IMO and from the engine builders I know their well built engines will put out 190 -195 rwhp on a Mustang Dyno, I believe that would be the equivalent of 205-210 rwhp on a Dyno Jet without Motec.

I always believed that when competive adjustments are made they should be modest so not to kill a cars ability to compete. For some reason the CRB does not like to keep adjusting, so they would rather hit you with a big adjustment and hope it is correct so they don&#39;t have to do it again, hence less bitching. I would have been happy with the weight of 150# especially since the changed the weight placement, which was the biggest common sense rule I&#39;ve seen to date. :happy204: Then if we need another weight adjustment just do it. But I doubt if this will happen. I like you am not happy with the amount of money this SIR is going to cost me. Not much I can do now if I want to race SCCA.
dj

[Harry Balszac]

Hairy,


Funny, I don&#39;t see "SCCA" in that statement anywhere. Both Andy and I have given you sources to contact to find out what&#39;s possible out of a full-tilt E36 program. Rather than availing yourself of that information, you&#39;d rather continue to rant. You&#39;ve already admitted that 195 whp is more a &#39;middle of the road&#39; (greatest area under the curve is what you said, IIRC). Why the hell should one car be spec&#39;d on a median number, when the rest are held to a max-out standard? The spoiled-brat stereotype of BMW owners seems to not totally w/o some validity.
I quoted this again, because it&#39;s clear evidence that you just haven&#39;t gathered any information, nor listened to anything that&#39;s been said here at all. What part of "all the cars in the ITCS got run through the process" didn&#39;t you understand? There were plenty of other cars that had weights adjusted based on the process, both up and down. The E36 didn&#39;t get an SIR because it was an overdog, it got one because the process weight is higher than the current spec weight. The car is getting special treatment w/ an SIR, and should get the process weight just like the rest of the cars in IT. You can scream all you want about the car getting picked on, but I&#39;ll let you in on something, you&#39;re probably embarrassing a lot of your fellow E36 drivers that actually do understand the process. Have you stopped and noticed that you and DD are some of the only E36 drivers that are saying that the car is being penalized because it&#39;s an overdog? Wait, do you actually race one of these cars? You sure sling a bunch of your opinion around like it&#39;s fact.
[/b]


Bill, my good man, I believe you may be parsing my comments for your own convenience. They are quoted below in their entirety. Note my comments about the subjectivity & arbitrariness of the magical "formula"? Do you think this is acceptable?

Also, I don&#39;t care that you have sent me scurrying off to talk to 3rd parties. I can get other 3rd parties to say I am the second coming of the Dali Lama. so? The point is, it is imperative that SCCA prove that 210 RWHP is being produced by real competitors in ITS right now. Saying it is "possible" or you&#39;ve "heard some guy is making 210" is simply not credible...and not acceptable. Either proof exists--not of a Sunbelt motor in a crate, but of a real ITS E36 today--or it doesn&#39;t. If it does, I will gladly admit I am 100% wrong. Until it does, 195 RWHP is a very common theme among much of this SIR discussion for months now, and it HAS been proven. Why not use it? Are you so stuck on a subjective, arbitrary formula that you blind yourself to the real world?

Additionally, I never EVER said that 195 is the "middle of the road". Read my comments again, please. I said that 195 would be under the largest part of the bell curve. BIG difference. Do you understand what the difference is?

And again, 195 is proven. 210 is, so far, not.

Third, I have never said that the E36 is an overdog. In fact, I have said the exact opposite. If you had taken the time ot actually read my posts before your knee jerked, you&#39;d realize this. I have been vocally opposed to those in SCCA, including Andy & others, who say it is, hence this adjustment. It is NOT an overdog, and all who say it is are not correct. Remember, Andy & others say it is, but also say that on-track performance is not very important to the "process". Sure sounds arbitrary & subjective to me. Let&#39;s see here: E36 & RX-7 are evenly matched on track, yet there is all this effort to slow the E36 down DESPITE this on-track performance, thanks to some magic, arbitrary, subjective "formula"?

Yeah...sorry...that dog won&#39;t hunt.

"I am sorry---I must have misunderstood the question.

I think Dave Dillehay made a good suggestion regarding weight in the 150lb range. Since so much of the alleged "formula" is subjective, IMO, we need to get the subjectivity & arbitrariness out of it.

A lot of very experienced racers say that 10 pounds is like 1 HP (approximately). So, if we take the assumption that most well-tuned E36 motors are making 195 HP, a 150 lb lead weight would dunk 15 HP, thus making 180 HP.

Of course, there are motors making less, and there may or may not be motors making more. But 195 has been thrown around repeatedly, so why not take 15 off by using 150 lbs of weight?"

"Gold standard? LOL.

Andy, please prove that the majority of E36 motors in ITS are producting 210 RWHP.

I will save you some time: THEY ARE NOT.

Your "gold standard" is subjective nonsense, with all due respect, and has NEVER been proven. EVER.

So let&#39;s get past it & back to reality. 195 RWHP is a reasonable number that I would put money on being under the largest part of the bell curve. Work with that, OK? and not some make-believe number that a lot of the BMW community feels was made up out of whole cloth to justify punishing the E36.

Not saying this is right or wrong--just saying that perception is reality."

[Joe Harlan]

I guess it ain&#39;t clear enough. There ain&#39;t no deals to be cut, This deal is done ahs a date and is on the way. If you can&#39;t handle it go race where ever you want. The number of cars parked by the original piss poor classification of this car makes the cars that will leave a small issue.

When you see the ITS records on the west coast held by a BMW and faster than T2 in most places you have to know the car is misclassed. Mr Norris is a top level effort with a top level car and that&#39;s what this deals are classed on. Time to get over it and get on with it.

[steve s]

i can guarantee you one thing .that is at 185whp the bmw cannot beat a full out rx7.
we couldn&#39;t beat buzz the speedsource rx7 in fl. region.at 185 whp.
also steve sek. i respect you as adriver but that 195 whp engine.could that engine survive a teardown at the ARRC or could we say a legal engine,
at the ARRC we could NOT KEEP UP WITH THE HUFFMASTER RX 7 and he was legal as all the top finishers.
anyone can throw numbers out there but is it legal numbers or just engines built to win, with a not so top notch effort.?????
also to the itac guys i know youre trying hard and you don&#39;t deserve what happening and the abuse thrown at you . stay strong and keep up your spirit, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
i cannot say whether the SIR is good or not because we don&#39;t have one to test with so i won&#39;t say if the size is correct or not .
someone was saying that variable timing and 4 valve head makes the bmw an overdog and needs a different formula the i guess the same formula should be used on the honda vtec engine??????what about the rx7 variable intake timing and intake runner lenghts?????? :wacko:

[seckerich]

Ok, so then my next question is, why aren&#39;t the BMW guys working to get this done at the regional level? IT is a regional class after all (I know, it is actually a "national" regional class), and many regions already have classes like ITE and IT7, with the rules for those classes set at the regional level, so why not petition for ITR, or ITX, or ITwhateveryouwanttocallit? If you could get all of the BMW guys from the same region together on this, don&#39;t you think you could get it done? Marshall, you&#39;re the reigning MARRS ITS champ, surely you could rally the DC region BMW drivers to get behind this. Sure, in the beginning it would probably be a one-marque class, but I&#39;ll bet it wouldn&#39;t be long before you had some 300ZXs, 911s, 3rd gen RX7s, etc. wanting to play.

So, is there a snowball&#39;s chance of something like this getting started?
[/b]
Now theres a party I would come to with my third gen RX--can you say "here bimmer bimmer"



i can guarantee you one thing .that is at 185whp the bmw cannot beat a full out rx7.
we couldn&#39;t beat buzz the speedsource rx7 in fl. region.at 185 whp.
also steve sek. i respect you as adriver but that 195 whp engine.could that engine survive a teardown at the ARRC or could we say a legal engine,
at the ARRC we could NOT KEEP UP WITH THE HUFFMASTER RX 7 and he was legal as all the top finishers.
anyone can throw numbers out there but is it legal numbers or just engines built to win, with a not so top notch effort.?????
also to the itac guys i know youre trying hard and you don&#39;t deserve what happening and the abuse thrown at you . stay strong and keep up your spirit, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
i cannot say whether the SIR is good or not because we don&#39;t have one to test with so i won&#39;t say if the size is correct or not .
someone was saying that variable timing and 4 valve head makes the bmw an overdog and needs a different formula the i guess the same formula should be used on the honda vtec engine??????what about the rx7 variable intake timing and intake runner lenghts?????? :wacko:
[/b]
It is not the first rodeo Buzz has been to--he has been at this a long time and is one fast driver. As far as the ARRC- 1/3 motor--2/3 balls. Simple formula to win there.

[Fastfred92]

Saying it is "possible" or you&#39;ve "heard some guy is making 210" is simply not credible...and not acceptable. [/b]


I&#39;ve heard of this guy thats getting 195 rwhp in his gen II RX7 and I am sure its possible to get 200, anything is possible if you throw enough cash at it....... If I go out and spend, say 100-200 grand on a RX 7 engine and get 10 more hp than any other documented RX7 will the CRB use that as the RX7&#39;s "gold standard". If say a orange BMW down south has a connection to a famous engine bussiness and thus $ is not an object and they make 10 more hp (legal) than everyone else is that this mystery 210 rwhp ?? Are the RX7 dyno sheets on file with the ad hoc using motec?

Not to stir the pot because I vote add weight, I just don&#39;t buy the 300lbs or the 210 rwhp....

[Harry Balszac]

I&#39;ve heard of this guy thats getting 195 rwhp in his gen II RX7 and I am sure its possible to get 200, anything is possible if you throw enough cash at it....... If I go out and spend, say 100-200 grand on a RX 7 engine and get 10 more hp than any other documented RX7 will the CRB use that as the RX7&#39;s "gold standard". If say a orange BMW down south has a connection to a famous engine bussiness and thus $ is not an object and they make 10 more hp (legal) than everyone else is that this mystery 210 rwhp ?? Are the RX7 dyno sheets on file with the ad hoc using motec?

Not to stir the pot because I vote add weight, I just don&#39;t buy the 300lbs or the 210 rwhp....
[/b]


Spot on, Fred.

And so we come full-circle back to Dave D&#39;s suggestion, which I heartily support, of adding 150 lbs of lead to E36 ITS cars, thus taking out approximately 15 RWHP, and bringing the high-level effort cars down to the desired 180 RWHP.

Amazing that this simple solution eluded so many people in positions of responsibility within ITAC and CRB.

Or maybe it&#39;s not.

[Joe Harlan]

Gentleman,

The ITAC members are doing a good job answering your questions and I&#39;ll be making a more detailed post to better explain our position on this. But the simple answer is we (the CRB) had a choice of adding a lot of weight or restricting the power. Since the car was already classed and there were no reports that the current weight couldn&#39;t be reached and believing that cars of similer weight make for better racing. We went with the restrictor.
The SIR was chosen over a much smaller flat plate for a couple of reasons but mostly to maintain the drivability and throttle response that makes a good race car. The current 29mm size pulls approximately 20 HP off the peak, bringing the E-36 within the classification proccess in use today.

There is no intention to make the E36 an uncompetive or undesirable race car. The only goal is to get this car classed where we can congratulate the BMW racers for a job well done without the under tone that their success is a result of a favorable classification instead of the hard work and skill of the team and driver.

Thanks, Bob
[/b]


Guys This is back on about page 8....WTH ARE YOU STILL FIGHTING ABOUT IT. It ain&#39;t gonna change you can offer up all kinds of counter solutions that have very little meaning but the rules change is done. Get over it.

I must also ask Mr. Scott. DO you currently or have you ever raced a fully developed ITS E36 in SCCA clubracing?

[Andy Bettencourt]

And so we come full-circle back to Dave D&#39;s suggestion, which I heartily support, of adding 150 lbs of lead to E36 ITS cars, thus taking out approximately 15 RWHP, and bringing the high-level effort cars down to the desired 180 RWHP.

Amazing that this simple solution eluded so many people in positions of responsibility within ITAC and CRB.

Or maybe it&#39;s not. [/b]

And so YOU come full circle. We told you why you can&#39;t use 195whp or anything but what is the best. The solution didn&#39;t elude us becuase it has little merit within the system we have been working for 3 years. Sorry.

To end this with you, I WILL be providing you the &#39;mystery&#39; dyno sheet you have asked for so we can hear your public apology. And lastly, the &#39;process&#39; weight of 3200 uses a 30% increase over stock for the E36. That is approx. 202whp using an 18% loss factor. This isn&#39;t a ploy to pidgeon-hole everyone into running a &#39;orange-car&#39; level or motor, its running a process using known, reasonable power outputs given max-preparation.

Oh ya:

Additionally, I never EVER said that 195 is the "middle of the road". Read my comments again, please. I said that 195 would be under the largest part of the bell curve. BIG difference. Do you understand what the difference is?[/b]

The largest area under the Bell Curve IS the AVERAGE. Click here. (http://www.math.sfu.ca/~hebron/archive/1999-2/claw/faq/bellcurve.html)

Over and out.

[seckerich]

Spot on, Fred.

And so we come full-circle back to Dave D&#39;s suggestion, which I heartily support, of adding 150 lbs of lead to E36 ITS cars, thus taking out approximately 15 RWHP, and bringing the high-level effort cars down to the desired 180 RWHP.

Amazing that this simple solution eluded so many people in positions of responsibility within ITAC and CRB.

Or maybe it&#39;s not.
[/b]
And somehow you think if you keep repeating this 195 number and your estimated 1 hp/lb number it will somehow be true? You seem like an intelligent Man Scott, but this is one time you will not succeed as a facilitator--not buying. Shoot low and hope it works. You have never replied about torque? Not want that discussion? As I said 20 posts ago, bring real numbers. 199hp with 188 torque, no motec and locked vanos on dynojet with SAE correction. A blind squirrel could find 10 more with motec and some vanos tuning. 150 150 150 --no it is still not working--keep saying it. Talk about simple?

[DoubleD]

And somehow you think if you keep repeating this 195 number and your estimated 1 hp/lb number it will somehow be true? You seem like an intelligent Man Scott, but this is one time you will not succeed as a facilitator--not buying. Shoot low and hope it works. You have never replied about torque? Not want that discussion? As I said 20 posts ago, bring real numbers. 199hp with 188 torque, no motec and locked vanos on dynojet with SAE correction. A blind squirrel could find 10 more with motec and some vanos tuning. 150 150 150 --no it is still not working--keep saying it. Talk about simple?
[/b]

Funny, when I called a well known BMW builder with an eye on buying a motec from them, they discouraged me (thank GOD) from buying it saying the cost wasnt worth the 4 or 5 crankHP. But hey...you know of a blind squirrel, so you must be right.

Edit: and locked vanos means locked on...not tuning of it. Hellooooooooooooooooo

[Harry Balszac]

You guys crack me up.

Circle the wagons at ALL costs.......but avoid answering Fred&#39;s reasonable questions about the RX-7 at ALL costs, too. LOL at the incredible irony. And ya wonder why the perception in the BMW community of bias, favoritism, and conflicts of interest haven&#39;t gone away despite the "all my friends say I am honest so I must be" testimonials?

Andy, FYI, your link showed 3 examples. The "average" was in different places in each. Maybe you meant a different example, because it sure didn&#39;t show what you think it showed.

Joe, you seem to be the master of seeking out more & more information about ME.

Why is that? What does that say about YOU?

Nevertheless, I will answer your question honestly, as I have all the other questions about ME. It was my intent to race a very well prepared ITS-legal car in 2006, prior to this SIR circus. Now, it is extremely likely that I will NOT race in it with SCCA at all, but only with BMW Club and NASA.

[Joe Harlan]

You guys crack me up.

Circle the wagons at ALL costs.......but avoid answering Fred&#39;s reasonable questions about the RX-7 at ALL costs, too. LOL at the incredible irony. And ya wonder why the perception in the BMW community of bias, favoritism, and conflicts of interest haven&#39;t gone away despite the "all my friends say I am honest so I must be" testimonials?

Andy, FYI, your link showed 3 examples. The "average" was in different places in each. Maybe you meant a different example, because it sure didn&#39;t show what you think it showed.

Joe, you seem to be the master of seeking out more & more information about ME.

Why is that? What does that say about YOU?

Nevertheless, I will answer your question honestly, as I have all the other questions about ME. It was my intent to race a very well prepared ITS-legal car in 2006, prior to this SIR circus. Now, it is extremely likely that I will NOT race in it with SCCA at all, but only with BMW Club and NASA.
[/b]

Says nothing about me Dave it does tell me that you have nothing at stake and never have. You have not been a customer we will loose and likely since you are a pro-driver your not a customer to gain. What you and your nick name tiny balls tell me is you like to fight and you have little respect for anyone&#39;s opinions but your own. So I will say it agian the rule is a done deal. I hope that the folks that have in the past enjoyed racing with SCCA will continue.

Double, If you want your statement to have any meaning then you shoudl name the engine builder and their qualifications with EFI. I can promise there is far more to be had in the hands of somebody that knows the system than 4 or 5 hp.

Again the rule is done. Mr Norris started a thread on how to make it work. Rather than all the BS maybe you experts should be helping those that are really interested in trying.

[seckerich]

Funny, when I called a well known BMW builder with an eye on buying a motec from them, they discouraged me (thank GOD) from buying it saying the cost wasnt worth the 4 or 5 crankHP. But hey...you know of a blind squirrel, so you must be right.

Edit: and locked vanos means locked on...not tuning of it. Hellooooooooooooooooo
[/b]
Helloooooooooooback--I know exactly what the vanos does and how to tweak it with motec-keep learning and you might find my squirrel. PS Total silence from Scott on the torque issue--talk about a circle j---. Oh and say something about an ITAC member and we might forget you are off on another tangent and didn&#39;t answer the direct question again. What about torque Scott? Very simple question. And my RX7 sheets from 2 seperate dynojets 500 miles apart are within 1hp and were available to the ITAC. Please send me that 195hp monster Fred saw and I will agree with the 150# for Scott.

And after reading Joes post I must agree--wrestle with a pig in the mud long enough and you realize it likes it!! Off to get a car that actually races ready for next weekend. Good luck to the Bimmer drivers with the changes-I hope you keep racing.

[Harry Balszac]

Says nothing about me Dave it does tell me that you have nothing at stake and never have. You have not been a customer we will loose and likely since you are a pro-driver your not a customer to gain. What you and your nick name tiny balls tell me is you like to fight and you have little respect for anyone&#39;s opinions but your own.
[/b]


Joe, here is some unsolicited advice regarding the above statements: please do not take up either phychology or mind-reading as a paying profession, as you would starve.

I am sorry to say that you could not be more wrong on either account. I am by no means a pro driver, although I am flattered by the accusation. :D I do compete in some pro races, but there is no way I even remotely have the talent to make a living racing. So I am really an amateur with pro licenses (God knows why they were ever granted...LOL). As such, the only way to hone & improve is to race in amateur/club series. So I very much have things at stake, and Club racing very much has a competitor (customer in your parlance) to lose in my moving on. And, I am sad to say, I will be only one among a large number of BMW folks leaving ITS.

And still, no one dares answer Fred&#39;s questions about the RX-7&#39;s. Very telling...

While you find it necessary once again to make issue with the irrelevant--my parodic user name--you are also way off base WRT your psychoanalysis of me. I do not like fighting, Joe. It is exhausting. But, even more, I do not like laying down while right is ignored and wrong is triumphed.

And finally, regarding your last sentence, above: you are batting .000 so far, Joe. I have great respect for the opinions of those who behave with integrity and honor, whether they dovetail with my own or not.

And I will leave it at that. Have a great evening!

[Eagle7]

I&#39;ve heard of this guy thats getting 195 rwhp in his gen II RX7 and I am sure its possible to get 200, anything is possible if you throw enough cash at it....... [/b]
What the heck are you guys smoking? So you&#39;re sure it&#39;s possible to get 200 HP from an IT trim RX-7. :wacko: I can tell you that most of the RX-7&#39;s in my neck of the woods are in the 160&#39;s and many are lower than that (unfortunately including mine). Probably the same prep level as your 195 HP bimmers.

If I go out and spend, say 100-200 grand on a RX 7 engine and get 10 more hp than any other documented RX7 will the CRB use that as the RX7&#39;s "gold standard". [/b]
I would think so, if it&#39;s documented to be legal.



You guys crack me up.[/b]
Evidently you have no idea how ridiculous that sounds.

Circle the wagons at ALL costs.......but avoid answering Fred&#39;s reasonable questions about the RX-7 at ALL costs, too. [/b]
Fred&#39;s comments were anything but reasonable.

LOL at the incredible irony. And ya wonder why the perception in the BMW community of bias, favoritism, and conflicts of interest haven&#39;t gone away despite the "all my friends say I am honest so I must be" testimonials? [/b]
I&#39;m pretty sure you don&#39;t represent the BMW community.

Not that it matters, but if the class bogey is about 15 lbs/HP, how could 10 lbs be worth 1 HP? Did I miss something in 5th grade?

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, here is some unsolicited advice regarding the above statements: please do not take up either phychology or mind-reading as a paying profession, as you would starve.

I am sorry to say that you could not be more wrong on either account. I am by no means a pro driver, although I am flattered by the accusation. :D I do compete in some pro races, but there is no way I even remotely have the talent to make a living racing. So I am really an amateur with pro licenses (God knows why they were ever granted...LOL). As such, the only way to hone & improve is to race in amateur/club series. So I very much have things at stake, and Club racing very much has a competitor (customer in your parlance) to lose in my moving on. And, I am sad to say, I will be only one among a large number of BMW folks leaving ITS.

And still, no one dares answer Fred&#39;s questions about the RX-7&#39;s. Very telling...

While you find it necessary once again to make issue with the irrelevant--my parodic user name--you are also way off base WRT your psychoanalysis of me. I do not like fighting, Joe. It is exhausting. But, even more, I do not like laying down while right is ignored and wrong is triumphed.
And finally, regarding your last sentence, above: you are batting .000 so far, Joe. I have great respect for the opinions of those who behave with integrity and honor, whether they dovetail with my own or not.

And I will leave it at that. Have a great evening!
[/b]

Yeah, I have seen you out there leading the charge when this car was misclassed to start with and setting records all over the country. Please go back and read Bob Dowies post and lets be done with this thread.

[Harry Balszac]

Yeah, I have seen you out there leading the charge when this car was misclassed to start with and setting records all over the country. Please go back and read Bob Dowies post and lets be done with this thread.
[/b]


Way to keep it real using the language of a bitter backmarker, Joe. :023:

As an aside, I would have no problem wit the E36 being reclassed. It may be the best long-term solution of all.

Eagle, I never claimed to represent anyone but myself. But I sure can hear the BMW community loud & clear. I am pretty sure you cannot, however. The approx. 10 lbs weight reduction = 1 more HP was shared with me by several very experienced racers and race engineers. It is not absolute, but generally, in production-based cars, it is pretty doggone close. In tube-frame cars and spec cars, it would not work at all, obviously.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You guys crack me up.

Circle the wagons at ALL costs.......but avoid answering Fred&#39;s reasonable questions about the RX-7 at ALL costs, too. LOL at the incredible irony. And ya wonder why the perception in the BMW community of bias, favoritism, and conflicts of interest haven&#39;t gone away despite the "all my friends say I am honest so I must be" testimonials? [/b]

Come on Harry! Seriously, lets move forward. The Vice-Chair of the CRB came on here and said there were no issues. As far as Fred&#39;s comment, there is no data to support that power level. If I told you I &#39;heard&#39; of a 245whp E36 in ITS, does that mean anything to you? I hope no. (Please don&#39;t anyone ever quote that 245whp ITS cars are being quoted by the ITAC) It&#39;s not very telling, it&#39;s not worth the response by most.


Andy, FYI, your link showed 3 examples. The "average" was in different places in each. Maybe you meant a different example, because it sure didn&#39;t show what you think it showed.[/b]

Yup, and the &#39;largest are under the bell curve&#39; in each example IS THE AVERAGE. It&#39;s what a BC is all about.


Nevertheless, I will answer your question honestly, as I have all the other questions about ME. It was my intent to race a very well prepared ITS-legal car in 2006, prior to this SIR circus. Now, it is extremely likely that I will NOT race in it with SCCA at all, but only with BMW Club and NASA. [/b]

And you know what? This is your right and in some ways I don&#39;t blame you. All anyone asks is that you try and look objectively at the numbers (if you are thinking weight at the time) and objectively at what the SIR takes off of a motor - and apply that to a top - not just &#39;excellent&#39; example (if you are thinking SIR&#39;s at the time)

[Joe Harlan]

Way to keep it real using the language of a bitter backmarker, Joe. :023:

As an aside, I would have no problem wit the E36 being reclassed. It may be the best long-term solution of all.

Eagle, I never claimed to represent anyone but myself. But I sure can hear the BMW community loud & clear. I am pretty sure you cannot, however. The approx. 10 lbs weight reduction = 1 more HP was shared with me by several very experienced racers and race engineers. It is not absolute, but generally, in production-based cars, it is pretty doggone close. In tube-frame cars and spec cars, it would not work at all, obviously.
[/b]
Dave, way to go. you have now proved yourself an asshole. Not bitter in anyway and I promise I am far from a backmarker in anything I drive. Your race engineers maybe very experienced but they are wrong in this case.
There were a ton of cars adjusted under the existing formula and this is the only one anyone is bitching about, Tells me that the adjustment is clearly the right one.

Have a nice weekend.

[Harry Balszac]

Andy, with all due respect to Bob (who has been very nice), I could not care less what the Vice Chairman of Dell Computers says, much less the Vice Chairman of the CRB. Titles do not impress me. The vice-chair of CRB said there are no issues? Wow, I guess i should jump up & down with the same glee as when we were told that the 27mm SIR would operate perfectly without testing. And with the same glee as when we were also told that the SIR would not reduce power for any non-uber-bling E36 motor making absolute max power.

See where I am going with this? I have no beef with Bob personally. But, frankly, CRB&#39;s and ITAC&#39;s credibility is approximately zero right now.

You said "As far as Fred&#39;s comment, there is no data to support that power level." Maybe so, Andy. There is also no data to support your "gold standard" of 210 RWHP for an E36 motor, either.

Joe, kinda sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, eh? If you are gonna make a personal barb--despite the Admins&#39; warning--do not expect it to remain unanswered. While I will not name the engineers who shared with me that benchmark--and I respect your opinion that you think they are wrong--two of the drivers who also echoed it WRT production-based cars are Brian Redman and Darren Law. I am sure they are wrong, too, and you are right. LOL.

[Joe Harlan]

Andy, with all due respect to Bob (who has been very nice), I could not care less what the Vice Chairman of Dell Computers says, much less the Vice Chairman of the CRB. Titles do not impress me. The vice-chair of CRB said there are no issues? Wow, I guess i should jump up & down with the same glee as when we were told that the 27mm SIR would operate perfectly without testing. And with the same glee as when we were also told that the SIR would not reduce power for any non-uber-bling E36 motor making absolute max power.

See where I am going with this? I have no beef with Bob personally. But, frankly, CRB&#39;s and ITAC&#39;s credibility is approximately zero right now.

You said "As far as Fred&#39;s comment, there is no data to support that power level." Maybe so, Andy. There is also no data to support your "gold standard" of 210 RWHP for an E36 motor, either.

Joe, kinda sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, eh? If you are gonna make a personal barb--despite the Admins&#39; warning--do not expect it to remain unanswered. While I will not name the engineers who shared with me that benchmark--and I respect your opinion that you think they are wrong--two of the drivers who also echoed it WRT production-based cars are Brian Redman and Darren Law. I am sure they are wrong, too, and you are right. LOL.
[/b]

So if we use your math the car makes 1 HP for every 10lbs of weight. Then we did not adjust it enough cause that would put the car at 285HP would it not? You can drop all the names you like but if they are wrong they are wrong. There is no generic math to determine how much HP is gained for a given amount of weight loss. Each application is different. But you just keep talking because you are quickly proving how little you actually know. So far all I have heard from you is "somebody told me"

Again John Norris started a thread on how to mount this thing and nobody has offered any help. I will bet 100 bucks once he figures it out John will be all over the front of the pack from day one.

[Bill Miller]

If you are gonna make a personal barb--despite the Admins&#39; warning--[/b]


But it&#39;s ok for you to do it? Yeah, that&#39;s it. :unsure: You&#39;ve got no credibility Hairy. BTW, can&#39;t wait for your response to the dyno sheet of that 210 whp E36. Anybody want to start a pool?


Guys This is back on about page 8....WTH ARE YOU STILL FIGHTING ABOUT IT. It ain&#39;t gonna change you can offer up all kinds of counter solutions that have very little meaning but the rules change is done. Get over it.

[/b]

And this is what, the THIRD time it&#39;s "been done"? Joe, I&#39;m really surprised that you&#39;d just lay down for something if it&#39;s not the right thing to do for the car or the class. Rules have been put in before that have been removed or revised. Just because it makes it in doesn&#39;t mean "it&#39;s done".

And, in defense of &#39;Sack (betcha never thought you&#39;d see that here! ;) ), the 10#/hp has nothing at all to do w/ how much power an engine makes. It&#39;s about how much hp an additional amount of weight will trim off. Applies to pretty much any car, in any class. I don&#39;t know how accurate the number is, but I&#39;ve heard it as well. Could be because it&#39;s such a nice, round number. But I suspect that it&#39;s probably pretty close. I can tell you where you won&#39;t see it, and that&#39;s on a dyno.

[Harry Balszac]

So if we use your math the car makes 1 HP for every 10lbs of weight. Then we did not adjust it enough cause that would put the car at 285HP would it not? You can drop all the names you like but if they are wrong they are wrong. There is no generic math to determine how much HP is gained for a given amount of weight loss. Each application is different. But you just keep talking because you are quickly proving how little you actually know. So far all I have heard from you is "somebody told me"

Again John Norris started a thread on how to mount this thing and nobody has offered any help. I will bet 100 bucks once he figures it out John will be all over the front of the pack from day one.
[/b]


Joe, I would ask that you work on your reading/listening skills. That is NOT what I said.

What I said is that a common benchmark is that every 10 pounds of weight removed from a production sedan-based car, it is the equivalent to adding 1 RWHP. And the opposite is true: for every approximately 10 pounds added, approximately 1 RWHP is lost.

Also, I am not "dropping names". I am passing on the wisdom of folks who have achieved a whole lot more in this sport than either you or I ever will. I take wisdom from folks like that--especially when at random the tidbits align nearly perfectly--very seriously. Apparently, however, you have no regard for any opinion that does not agree with your own, no matter its source (ironically, a charge you leveled against me). If you&#39;d like to remain in denial, please be my guest. I am sure Joe Harlan knows a lot more than anyone...LOL.

As for your other point, why the hell didn&#39;t SCCA make mounting instructions part of the ruling? Oh, yeah, that&#39;s right: NOTHING about this SIR debacle has either been tested or has turned out to be true...and it has to be implemented in a month with NO product availbility.

Pure genius. Kudos to CRB and ITAC for a stellar job. LMAO...

Bill, two things. First, I made no barb at Joe that precipitated him reminding me that I am a mediocre driver. So, once again, you are off base....and he calls ME the "asshole"? Priceless. Second, if we have dyno info on an actual current ITS e36 competitor that makes 210 RWHP, on the same dyno as the others used for this SIR testing, I will gladly admit I was wrong when I said there was no evidence of one.

[Fastfred92]

Lets end this thing! Start a letter to the CRB effort to reconsider the direction of IT and SIR&#39;s,,,, either do away with them in IT or apply them to all cars. Add weight to the BMW but do it in steps to get it right. Mask the car owners name but make public all dyno sheets the ad hoc has, e36, RX, 240, GSR, 944 whatever else. Start a fricking collection and when you get atleast 20 of each make we could start to make educated guesses as to what car make what hp.... I could care less what AB or Geo or whoever drives, works on etc. etc. but lets make this whole process more transparent, we are afterall in the same club and each of us should has as much of a voice as the next.

[Joe Harlan]

But it&#39;s ok for you to do it? Yeah, that&#39;s it. :unsure: You&#39;ve got no credibility Hairy. BTW, can&#39;t wait for your response to the dyno sheet of that 210 whp E36. Anybody want to start a pool?
And this is what, the THIRD time it&#39;s "been done"? Joe, I&#39;m really surprised that you&#39;d just lay down for something if it&#39;s not the right thing to do for the car or the class. Rules have been put in before that have been removed or revised. Just because it makes it in doesn&#39;t mean "it&#39;s done".

[/b]

Bill, I am not laying down for anything. We disagree on this and nothing more. I believe in the end this technology will be good for the class and I also believe it will allow more cars to be classed and raced. And they won&#39;t just be BMW&#39;s.
The power to weight formula spouted out here is nothing more than an estimate and I find it funny that we would give it credibility and then say the system being used is BS. As far as the rule being done Bill. It is done dude so quit giving people false hope that it&#39;s gonna change. There is a date set and people are installing these things and going racing. If we loose a couple of guys that we never had and never were likely to have then I am OK with that.
You can say that SIR&#39;s aren&#39;t good for IT till your blue in the face but fact is they are here and here to stay. It won&#39;t belong before you see them every where. The number of classes we have is stupid and there is no reason to add more.

Mr. Scott, I respect both of the people you spoke of but you have no idea what my background is so you have no clue what I know. You guys have fun.

[Bill Miller]

Simply amazing Hairy, you can call me a &#39;azzhole&#39;, but then get your nose all out of joint because someone does the same to you. Too frickin funny!!! And what does it matter if it&#39;s a current ITS competitor or not? If there&#39;s dyno data that show a 210 whp ITS E36, what the hell difference does it make if it&#39;s still being run or not? I do agree though, the data should be from the same brand dyno to be an apples to apples comparrison.

Joe,

You said the rule was here to stay when it was a 27mm SIR. Like I said, you may be willing to accept this, but there are several others, including myself, that aren&#39;t, and will work towards getting these things tossed from IT.

[Joe Harlan]

Simply amazing Hairy, you can call me a &#39;azzhole&#39;, but then get your nose all out of joint because someone does the same to you. Too frickin funny!!! And what does it matter if it&#39;s a current ITS competitor or not? If there&#39;s dyno data that show a 210 whp ITS E36, what the hell difference does it make if it&#39;s still being run or not? I do agree though, the data should be from the same brand dyno to be an apples to apples comparrison.

Joe,

You said the rule was here to stay when it was a 27mm SIR. Like I said, you may be willing to accept this, but there are several others, including myself, that aren&#39;t, and will work towards getting these things tossed from IT.
[/b]

Bill, you can work at it all you want. I am cofortable saying it&#39;s here to stay and I am spending my extra time getting to know how to make it work and how it will balance classes.

As far as having to run on the same Dyno goes it would be nice but not needed. Dyno&#39;s are a tool and if you read all the data you get from a dyno peak HP i just one item. There is far more information that can be gained by reading and understanding all the other information you get. I really don&#39;t care who&#39;s dyno it is I care more about who is operating it.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, you can work at it all you want. I am cofortable saying it&#39;s here to stay and I am spending my extra time getting to know how to make it work and how it will balance classes.

As far as having to run on the same Dyno goes it would be nice but not needed. Dyno&#39;s are a tool and if you read all the data you get from a dyno peak HP i just one item. There is far more information that can be gained by reading and understanding all the other information you get. I really don&#39;t care who&#39;s dyno it is I care more about who is operating it.
[/b]


Then we will agree to disagree. I do agree w/ you about the dyno operator. As an aside, just how well have SIRs worked in GT-L?

[dj10]

It is certaintly a shame to see so many people being polarized by this "adjustment" but I can see why it would. I&#39;m certain that no one in their right mind would like to spend $1,000 to $ 2,000 to make their cars go slower. Am I right? We are taking a giant leap of faith that this will work. We already heard form the CRB if it doesn&#39;t work they will correct it, but by whose&#39;s expense? I think I&#39;m doing this more for the experience and information than I&#39;m being patriotic to the SCCA. I really don&#39;t know what is going to happen since I can&#39;t afford a top of the line engine builder to build my engine. I plan to be able to race NASA if this SIR kills my chances of being competive in SCCA. This is all I can do. I do believe that the SCCA will lose a lot of, or most of it&#39;s BMW membership, which is sad. When the SCCA made the Struts & Shocks with resevoirs illegal, I bet they ticked some people that spent big bucks for them off, so it won&#39;t be the 1st time they alienated some people. I guess I be stubborn and see this thing through even though my gut feeling is telling me something different. I think all the BMW racers have to make a decision to boycott and let those rice burners walk away with everything, or not. I won&#39;t be posting here any more since there isn&#39;t anything new being typed here, Time to move beyond this.
Everyone kiss and make up! :D

[Harry Balszac]

Simply amazing Hairy, you can call me a &#39;azzhole&#39;, but then get your nose all out of joint because someone does the same to you. Too frickin funny!!! And what does it matter if it&#39;s a current ITS competitor or not? If there&#39;s dyno data that show a 210 whp ITS E36, what the hell difference does it make if it&#39;s still being run or not? I do agree though, the data should be from the same brand dyno to be an apples to apples comparrison.

Joe,

You said the rule was here to stay when it was a 27mm SIR. Like I said, you may be willing to accept this, but there are several others, including myself, that aren&#39;t, and will work towards getting these things tossed from IT.
[/b]


Bill, you are correct. I should not have suggested you were behaving like an azzhole. I retract it and apologize for it. I should not have lowered myself to behave the way folks I criticize behave; yet I did, and I am sorry, Bill.

I do sincerely believe we need to look at ITS E36&#39;s that are actually competing to find the peak RWHP. I believe this is one of the few ways we can bring credibility back to this sorry process. You may disagree, and that is fine. But I believe in looking at competitors, not theories. As an example, there are probably a number of retired World Challenge 325i&#39;s that are in some way better than those competing today. Does that mean they should be the basis for curretn WC rules? I say no.

Your final point ot Joe is spot-on, hence my earlier comment about some folks circling the wagons at all costs, and my other point about the CRB and ITAC&#39;s credibility being approximately zero these days.

Joe, you are right--I do not know your capabilities or talents, nor you mine. The difference between us is this: I do not underestimate you, but you underestimate me. While I really don&#39;t care, you should know that this is not the sign of a professional. Professionals do not underestimate their opponents or fellow competitors.

[e36its]

When the SCCA made the Struts & Shocks with resevoirs illegal, I bet they ticked some people that spent big bucks for the off[/b]
This got me thinking about some notable rule changes in the past like the remote reservoir thing, the threaded-body coilover rule, SBs. The effect of these changes was to change the definition of max prep, right? This sort of change has become commonplace, or at least we&#39;ve gotten used to them. What I think is new is a rule that changes the definition of minimum-prep for a subset of the class.

One can be IT legal with basic safety equipment only, right? Add in cage, harnesses, window net, bolt in fire extinguisher, and kill switch and you&#39;re off to the races (literally!). You can run stock exhaust and the stock airbox and the full interior if you want. Competitive? Probably not -- but it&#39;s possible UNLESS you&#39;re an E36. Then you need to ditch the stock airbox, intake piping, and (it seems) custom programming in addition to buying a $350 SIR.

It might be that we make rules for max prep and thus the minimum prep isn&#39;t a concept that matters. It might be the rule of the land and I should just move on (hi, Joe!). But I can&#39;t help but think it&#39;s a fundamental change in the class beyond some squabble between the BMW and non-BMW folk.

tom

[lateapex911]

Dave, IMO and from the engine builders I know their well built engines will put out 190 -195 rwhp on a Mustang Dyno, I believe that would be the equivalent of 205-210 rwhp on a Dyno Jet without Motec.

dj
[/b]

OK, anybody care to reveal the difference between a Mustang and a dynojet?

Or what does 192.5 = on a Dyno jet?

(And yes, i know it depends on WHAT dynojet, and that there are differences, and many factors can skew the exact number. But generally....is a Mustang 10% weaker or 15% stronger or ????)






........ 190-195 on a mustang ain&#39;t the same as 190-195 on a dynojet.
[/b]

[lateapex911]

Gold standard? LOL.

........

Your "gold standard" is subjective nonsense, with all due respect, and has NEVER been proven. EVER.

--just saying that perception is reality.
[/b]

Just a point of order. Running around with a blindfold on and saying "I can&#39;t see the proof" doesn&#39;t mean that the proof doesn&#39;t exist, it merely means that you can&#39;t see it.
And claiming that it can&#39;t exist, or we would have provided it is a statement with an incorrect conclusion.

I won&#39;t publish information given to me in confidence.

And stating that it would be public IF it existed has logical flaws as well. If your car were to be adjusted, and the adjustment was based on the power it made, and if you knew you were a top of the class car, would you send in your numbers voluntarily? Most would not, unless the numbers were in conflict to the numbers that were being discussed, and adjustments based on those discussed numbers would hurt your competitve position unduly.

Ask Kirk Knestis about motivation and policy.....


The second point is, how is it fair to the rest of IT to class one car based on the fat part of the "bell curve" while every other car is classed based on a top prep condition???

The corallary is that if that were to happen then every car would be readjusted proportionaly.

You have stated earlier that the car deserves no special treatment. You have also stated that 195 is the fat part of the bell curve. If that&#39;s the case, top prep is clearly above that, and the car should, if it indeed doesn&#39;t deserve special treatment as you say, be classed appropriately.

[lateapex911]

.......at the ARRC we could NOT KEEP UP WITH THE HUFFMASTER RX 7 and he was legal as all the top finishers.
......
also to the itac guys i know youre trying hard and you don&#39;t deserve what happening and the abuse thrown at you . stay strong and keep up your spirit, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
i cannot say whether the SIR is good or not because we don&#39;t have one to test with so i won&#39;t say if the size is correct or not .
someone was saying that variable timing and 4 valve head makes the bmw an overdog and needs a different formula the i guess the same formula should be used on the honda vtec engine??????what about the rx7 variable intake timing and intake runner lenghts?????? :wacko:
[/b]

be careful Steve.

We have to use facts that we know are facts....and the fact that all ARRC top cars are legal is just not known.

Points of interest;
The ITS rotaries are, by the tech official at the ARRCs admittance, difficult to check. As such, they do not check for porting. (ITA is different. they use a "Lolipop" for the exhaust, and a finger for the intake) Nor do they check for things like using idle air adjuter valves to admit air at full throttle downstream of the throttle plates, which is possible with advanced engine management systems.

ITS piston engines are not automatically torn down. If manpower exists, they will pull the heads and check for things like valve size, and other related measurements. But it is possible to have a lot of things done to the bottom end and fly through tech, evn after an ARRC teardown. And some years a car could have even more.

While the ARRC teardown is one of the better ones out there, if not the best, it needs to be remembered that we can&#39;t assume the cars are, or are not, totally legal.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I won&#39;t publish information given to me in confidence.

And stating that it would be public IF it existed has logical flaws as well. [/b]

Jake,

Don&#39;t sweat it. We all know you are right and I will be getting permission, the document, and an apology from our friend.

AB

[lateapex911]

As for your other point, why the hell didn&#39;t SCCA make mounting instructions part of the ruling? Oh, yeah, that&#39;s right: NOTHING about this SIR debacle has either been tested .........
Pure genius. Kudos to CRB and ITAC for a stellar job. LMAO...

[/b]

[sarcasm mode ON]

Huh??? NOTHING has been tested?? uh oh.. :unsure: ...I played hookey from work for a couple days to attend testing...and my client wasn&#39;t thrilled to find that I would be gone for two Saturdays for car racing commitee stuff.....if i wasn&#39;t there, they&#39;ll be even less pleased....

...can we keep this lack of testing to ourselves??


[/Sarcasm mode, um, OFF]

[Harry Balszac]

[sarcasm mode ON]

Huh??? NOTHING has been tested?? uh oh.. :unsure: ...I played hookey from work for a couple days to attend testing...and my client wasn&#39;t thrilled to find that I would be gone for two Saturdays for car racing commitee stuff.....if i wasn&#39;t there, they&#39;ll be even less pleased....

...can we keep this lack of testing to ourselves??
[/Sarcasm mode, um, OFF]
[/b]


Jake, tell me again about all the testing the 27mm SIR was put through before it was mandated?

Case closed.

[lateapex911]

Jake, tell me again about all the testing the 27mm SIR was put through before it was mandated?

Case closed.
[/b]

:rolleyes:

Oh, I see.....so,
Oh, yeah, that&#39;s right: NOTHING about this SIR debacle has either been tested .........[/b]
really means "They never bothered to actually test their first anounced size" in Harry Ballszack speak??

If NOTHING has been tested, fine, but you know better. Your posts are filled with little exagerations and outright mis-statemetns. Post what you mean.

[Harry Balszac]

:rolleyes:

Oh, I see.....so,
really means "They never bothered to actually test their first anounced size" in Harry Ballszack speak??

If NOTHING has been tested, fine, but you know better. Your posts are filled with little exagerations and outright mis-statemetns. Post what you mean.
[/b]


I posted what I meant, Jake, just as I did when I said the Circle The Wagons mentality is in full swing here.

Let&#39;s recap, shall we?

-the 27mm SIR was mandated...untested...Andy et al claimed it did not need testing...LOL
-the 27mm was mandated with the promise that it would not take away any power of non-max-effort motors
-then, the 29mm SIR was mandated, after independent tests of the 27mm proved it SUCKED
-the 29mm SIR was mandated without any instructions or testing of mounting procedures, etc.
-the 29mm SIR was mandated without any testing of its availability
-the 29mm was mandated with the promise that it would not take away any power of non-max-effort motors
-et cetera
-lather--rinse--repeat

All of the above turned out to be critical flaws of this "process". Do you see a pattern here?

No...of course you don&#39;t. Clearly, I&#39;M the real problem here.

LOL. Do you guys know how this all makes you look to the customers?

[Bill Miller]

Hairy,

Just so we&#39;re clear on this, you favor a system that would allow people w/ less than max efforts to run at the front? If not, you shoudl be happy that the SIR behaves in a more linear fashion, across all prep levels. If you do favor such a system, please take your sense of entitlement elsewhere. And if don&#39;t want such a system, your continued harping about it means you&#39;re still after that pound of flesh that I mentioned earlier.

[kthomas]

"Just so we&#39;re clear on this, you favor a system that would allow people w/ less than max efforts to run at the front? "

Ha! Gee, isn&#39;t that what the RR shock ban was all about? :dead_horse:

[Harry Balszac]

Hairy,

Just so we&#39;re clear on this, you favor a system that would allow people w/ less than max efforts to run at the front? If not, you shoudl be happy that the SIR behaves in a more linear fashion, across all prep levels. If you do favor such a system, please take your sense of entitlement elsewhere. And if don&#39;t want such a system, your continued harping about it means you&#39;re still after that pound of flesh that I mentioned earlier.
[/b]


Bill, first of all, I have no sense of "entitlement" of any sort. My view is, the best driver will win. Now, I know there are other parameters---big $ often aids lesser drivers in winning. But generally, the best driver does win, whether in ITS or SRF or WC or GAC or....well, you get the idea.

Second, read Kthomas&#39; note above mine WRT the RR shock rule. Sort of makes sense, eh?

Third, I want a system that is FAIR and PASSES THE SNIFF TEST. The 29mm SIR may or may not be fair, but how we got to it definitely does NOT pass the sniff test.

And, as such, regardless of how many insiders we have telling us it is the "right" soution (see post 385 above for more on this...), it will NEVER pass the sniff test and will always be clouded. This is why I advocate discarding it & starting over, with implementation Jan 1, 2007, and NOT in 4 weeks.

We might get the exact same answer---that is fine! Again, if there is evidence that ITS E36 motors, in CURRECT competition, with current log books (i.e., which have passed tech for 2006), are making 210 RWHP, then obviously that is peak effort. However, how we got here is so flawed, fraught with missteps, and clouded by appearances of favoritism, conflicts of interest, and possible impropriety, that the ONLY fair, above-board way to get all of ITS on board with any decision, and the ONLY way top keep a large chunk of BMWs in ITS from leaving for good, is to start over.

And I am truly amazed at the opposition to this proposal. Or maybe not.

As for a pound of flesh? Nope, I do not want that. I want accountability...but even more than that, I want a clean, fresh, totally beyond reproach re-do.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, first of all, I have no sense of "entitlement" of any sort. My view is, the best driver will win. Now, I know there are other parameters---big $ often aids lesser drivers in winning. But generally, the best driver does win, whether in ITS or SRF or WC or GAC or....well, you get the idea.

Second, read Kthomas&#39; note above mine WRT the RR shock rule. Sort of makes sense, eh?

Third, I want a system that is FAIR and PASSES THE SNIFF TEST. The 29mm SIR may or may not be fair, but how we got to it definitely does NOT pass the sniff test.

And, as such, regardless of how many insiders we have telling us it is the "right" soution (see post 385 above for more on this...), it will NEVER pass the sniff test and will always be clouded. This is why I advocate discarding it & starting over, with implementation Jan 1, 2007, and NOT in 4 weeks.

We might get the exact same answer---that is fine! Again, if there is evidence that ITS E36 motors, in CURRECT competition, with current log books (i.e., which have passed tech for 2006), are making 210 RWHP, then obviously that is peak effort. However, how we got here is so flawed, fraught with missteps, and clouded by appearances of favoritism, conflicts of interest, and possible impropriety, that the ONLY fair, above-board way to get all of ITS on board with any decision, and the ONLY way top keep a large chunk of BMWs in ITS from leaving for good, is to start over.

And I am truly amazed at the opposition to this proposal. Or maybe not.

As for a pound of flesh? Nope, I do not want that. I want accountability...but even more than that, I want a clean, fresh, totally beyond reproach re-do.
[/b]

Hairy,

The RR shock issue is not the same, and is a red herring. This was something that was taken off the table for EVERYBODY. Same thing happened w/ internal engine coatings. The CRB (CB at the time), decided that it was technology that didn&#39;t belong in IT. Katman&#39;s just still pissed about it. The E36 issue is not even close.

And I noticed that you didn&#39;t answer my question.

[Harry Balszac]

Bill, I in fact did answer your question. I want the whole thing redone.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I in fact did answer your question. I want the whole thing redone.
[/b]

Actually, you didn&#39;t answer my question. Believe me, nobody wants the SIR dumped more than I do. The car should run at its process weight, just like the rest of the cars in IT. And like the rest of the cars in IT, that&#39;s a process weight based on a full-tilt effort, not some &#39;average&#39; effort.

[Harry Balszac]

Bill, we are going to have to agree to disagree about that one. You may be right--300 lbs may be the weight. I seriously doubt it, but it may. Or a 29mm SIR may be better. Who knows? Clearly, given the bungling to date, neither the ITAC nor the CRB do either.

[kthomas]

"The RR shock issue is not the same, and is a red herring. This was something that was taken off the table for EVERYBODY. Same thing happened w/ internal engine coatings. The CRB (CB at the time), decided that it was technology that didn&#39;t belong in IT. Katman&#39;s just still pissed about it. The E36 issue is not even close."

Looks the same to me. A retroactive rule to penalize the folks who had spent the money to develop a winning ride within the rules as they existed when they made the decision to spend the money. When the E36 became eligible, I know a lot of people who moved to that car from a previous car because they thought it would be better. No different than thinking a better shock will be better. The only difference is in the amount of money spent. I bought another engine due to the coatings rule. I bought another set of shocks due to the shock rule. I personally think the SIR is going to render the E36 uncompetitive, and regardless of the performance, it&#39;s another rule that costs somebody money. Remember, you didn&#39;t have to coat your engine, you didn&#39;t have to have RR shocks, you didn&#39;t have to buy a BMW. But once you do, rule changes shouldn&#39;t render your investment worthless. Once again the "have nots" still don&#39;t have to spend any more money but the "haves" do. Another tax on rich people levied by "have nots". True democracy in action, and the reason why democracies never last.

[Joe Harlan]

"The RR shock issue is not the same, and is a red herring. This was something that was taken off the table for EVERYBODY. Same thing happened w/ internal engine coatings. The CRB (CB at the time), decided that it was technology that didn&#39;t belong in IT. Katman&#39;s just still pissed about it. The E36 issue is not even close."

Looks the same to me. A retroactive rule to penalize the folks who had spent the money to develop a winning ride within the rules as they existed when they made the decision to spend the money. When the E36 became eligible, I know a lot of people who moved to that car from a previous car because they thought it would be better. No different than thinking a better shock will be better. The only difference is in the amount of money spent. I bought another engine due to the coatings rule. I bought another set of shocks due to the shock rule. I personally thing the SIR is going to render the E36 uncompetitive, and regardless of the performance, it&#39;s another rule that costs somebody money. Remember, you didn&#39;t have to coat your engine, you didn&#39;t have to have RR shocks, you didn&#39;t have to buy a BMW. But once you do, rule changes shouldn&#39;t render your investment worthless. Once again the "have nots" still don&#39;t have to spend any more money but the "haves" do. Another tax on rich people levied by "have nots". True democracy in action, and the reason why democracies never last.
[/b]

Katman, We almost agree except. It was one rule "classification of the E36" that made 100&#39;s of peoples investments worthless. Please explain why we should just accept that and buy a different brand. I had no issue RR SHocks, coatings ect. But when a car is misclassed and I feel misclassed with intent at the time. then something needs to be done. Maybe the right thing would have been to just declassify the thing and be done with it.

[lateapex911]

".......... Once again the "have nots" still don&#39;t have to spend any more money but the "haves" do. Another tax on rich people levied by "have nots". True democracy in action, and the reason why democracies never last.
[/b]

No. The ENTIRE PCA concept is what we are discussing here, NOT the slapping of "rich people" by a "poor" majority. The simple fact of the matter is that the BMW was misclassed....Too light for its potential. So was the CRX in ITA. Those two cars made backmarkers out of dozens of cars that had a reasonable shot before they were classed. Then the reaction to the error, at least in ITA, was to add "equivelent " classifications, like the Integra and the 240SX. Which pushed the "have nots" further down the grid. Where once you could be in the front 5 in a field, you were soon thrilled to be at the front of the "ITA lite" class, LOL, and if you were in the top ten in a race of 25, you were thrilled!

This has nothing to do with social or financial reasoning. PCAs were a method to right past misclassifications, plain and simple. The E36 is one of those misclassifications.

Let&#39;s not cloud a simple issue by dragging in political commentary.

[Bill Miller]

"The RR shock issue is not the same, and is a red herring. This was something that was taken off the table for EVERYBODY. Same thing happened w/ internal engine coatings. The CRB (CB at the time), decided that it was technology that didn&#39;t belong in IT. Katman&#39;s just still pissed about it. The E36 issue is not even close."

Looks the same to me. A retroactive rule to penalize the folks who had spent the money to develop a winning ride within the rules as they existed when they made the decision to spend the money. When the E36 became eligible, I know a lot of people who moved to that car from a previous car because they thought it would be better. No different than thinking a better shock will be better. The only difference is in the amount of money spent. I bought another engine due to the coatings rule. I bought another set of shocks due to the shock rule. I personally think the SIR is going to render the E36 uncompetitive, and regardless of the performance, it&#39;s another rule that costs somebody money. Remember, you didn&#39;t have to coat your engine, you didn&#39;t have to have RR shocks, you didn&#39;t have to buy a BMW. But once you do, rule changes shouldn&#39;t render your investment worthless. Once again the "have nots" still don&#39;t have to spend any more money but the "haves" do. Another tax on rich people levied by "have nots". True democracy in action, and the reason why democracies never last.
[/b]

C&#39;mon katman, RR shocks, engine coatings, sequential trannies (prod), etc. are TECHNOLOGY issues. As has been pointed out, the E36 is a single-car classification issue. While I agree that the technology issues cost people money, it was a case of the powers that be deciding that those technologies were not appropriate for the class. We could go into all kinds of things, like how some of them got in in the first place.

[kthomas]

You have a valid arguement about misclassification, and I would agree its different than technology creep or whatever you want to call the other "retroactives", if a rule change had happened 5 or 6 years ago before a lot of people switched cars or invested a lot in the development of the BMW. Especially for a class who&#39;s intent doesn&#39;t involve maintaining competitiveness.

Sure will be interesting when we get an on track back to back test.

[lateapex911]

You have a valid arguement about misclassification, and I would agree its different than technology creep or whatever you want to call the other "retroactives", if a rule change had happened 5 or 6 years ago before a lot of people switched cars or invested a lot in the development of the BMW. Especially for a class who&#39;s intent doesn&#39;t involve maintaining competitiveness.

Sure will be interesting when we get an on track back to back test.
[/b]


As a guy who has been involved in the PCS concept since the begining, and even before that, I agree, it would have been great IF it had come earlier.

But the wheels turn slowly at times. And maybe the extra time was well spent, becuase to implement such a big change, such a significant philisophical shift, and to get it wrong, would ruin a pretty good thing.

(And while the "intent statement" hasn&#39;t actually changed to reflect things, it is safe to say that the ITAC and the CRB is dedicated to something along the lines of, "While there is no guarantee of competitiveness, we will try harder than ever before to acheive a reasonable level of fairness", or something to that effect.)

I said 4 years ago that 80% of the problems in IT were 20% of the cars. And I was being generous, as I really thought that 10 percent of the cars were causing 90% of the problems.

To take your comments further, while it would have been great to implement the PCAs sooner, it would have been even better to have classed the problem cars properly in the first place.

Whatever, we&#39;ve come a LONG way, and in terms of "IT time", the change came quickly.

My concern is to look at the big picture, identify the next 80/20 issue that can be fixed, and make IT even better.

[Bill Miller]

You have a valid arguement about misclassification, and I would agree its different than technology creep or whatever you want to call the other "retroactives", if a rule change had happened 5 or 6 years ago before a lot of people switched cars or invested a lot in the development of the BMW. Especially for a class who&#39;s intent doesn&#39;t involve maintaining competitiveness.

Sure will be interesting when we get an on track back to back test.
[/b]

Couldn&#39;t agree w/ you more.

[mlytle]

C&#39;mon katman, RR shocks, engine coatings, sequential trannies (prod), etc. are TECHNOLOGY issues. As has been pointed out, the E36 is a single-car classification issue. While I agree that the technology issues cost people money, it was a case of the powers that be deciding that those technologies were not appropriate for the class. We could go into all kinds of things, like how some of them got in in the first place.
[/b]

yep, those are technology issues. but one could also say the e36 is a technology issue. auto technology made huge gains in the 20 years between the 240z and the 325is. a simple hp/lb formula cannot capture the difference in potential between different generations of technology.

[Harry Balszac]

yep, those are technology issues. but one could also say the e36 is a technology issue. auto technology made huge gains in the 20 years between the 240z and the 325is. a simple hp/lb formula cannot capture the difference in potential between different generations of technology.
[/b]


GASP!

But...but...but, Marshall, the "formula" is everything!

The SIR doesn&#39;t have to be tested---the "formula" says it will work! The "formula" and the "process" are sacrosanct and they are everything! They cannot be doubted or questioned! Do you want to be labled an infidel and an apostate?

Repent now!!!

:wacko:

[seckerich]

GASP!

But...but...but, Marshall, the "formula" is everything!

The SIR doesn&#39;t have to be tested---the "formula" says it will work! The "formula" and the "process" are sacrosanct and they are everything! They cannot be doubted ot questioned! Do you want to be labled an infidel and an apostate?

Repent now!!!

:wacko:
[/b]
And to think we almost made it two days with intelligent posts--Welcome back dick--I mean harry--or whatever.

[Harry Balszac]

And to think we almost made it two days with intelligent posts--Welcome back dick--I mean harry--or whatever.
[/b]


Thanks, man.

Maybe Santa will bring you a sense of humor for Christmas!

:rolleyes:

[seckerich]

Thanks, man.

Maybe Santa will bring you a sense of humor for Christmas!

:rolleyes:
[/b]
Pretty sure he did :cavallo:

[Joe Harlan]

yep, those are technology issues. but one could also say the e36 is a technology issue. auto technology made huge gains in the 20 years between the 240z and the 325is. a simple hp/lb formula cannot capture the difference in potential between different generations of technology.
[/b]

Your right Marshall and that&#39;s where the mistake was made in the past. Like the shocks and coatings ect. there was more technology let into the class than the class was designed for. The correct thing would have been not to classify the car to start with. Now that that&#39;s out of the bag the correct thing is to bring the car back to a reasonble state of tune rather than throwing them away like RR shocks and engines like we have in the past.

[Harry Balszac]

Pretty sure he did :cavallo:
[/b]


Hahaha...touche&#39;

[Bill Miller]

yep, those are technology issues. but one could also say the e36 is a technology issue. auto technology made huge gains in the 20 years between the 240z and the 325is. a simple hp/lb formula cannot capture the difference in potential between different generations of technology.
[/b]


Maybe to some degree Marshall, but even if you used the same percentage gain for IT tune (25%), and then use the same wt/hp ratio (what was it for a 240Z, 15.5?), you still end up w/ a spec weight for the E36 that&#39;s over 3000# (assuming an 18% driveline loss). I imagine that if the E36 was initially spec&#39;d @ 3000#, the vast majority of conversations around it might have been avoided. Who knows, the whole idea of PCAs may have never come up.

[e36its]

I would really be curious to hear, from the BMW guys ONLY, what alternatives they would consider viable to bring the power of their cars down to the desired maximum hp figure (which was, I believe, 180 rwhp? - correct me if I&#39;m wrong). Assume the alternative is 300 lbs. of extra weight.[/b]
Sorry, Earl, I never answered your question. This relatively newb E36 pilot would probably take the weight. Two bits of reasoning:

1) I think it&#39;s fundamentally not IT to run these SIR things -- or at least not the way I see IT. I like the idea that an IT car can be minimally built junkyard motor with four mismatched shocks and a set of tape numbers or a $50k monster with motec shoved in a thimble. (Most of us are probably somewhere inbetween those two, eh?) Mandating minimum level of prep for non-safety equipment (like, say, $1k worth of intake stuff, SIR, and tuning) for one car only seems fundamentally off to me.

2) I&#39;m tired of everyone accusing E36 owners of being a phallus with a sense of entitlement. If the E36 gets special treatment (and the SIR is awfully special) then this whole stupid episode will never end.

tom

[erlrich]

Sorry, Earl, I never answered your question. This relatively newb E36 pilot would probably take the weight. Two bits of reasoning:

1) I think it&#39;s fundamentally not IT to run these SIR things -- or at least not the way I see IT. I like the idea that an IT car can be minimally built junkyard motor with four mismatched shocks and a set of tape numbers or a $50k monster with motec shoved in a thimble. (Most of us are probably somewhere inbetween those two, eh?) Mandating minimum level of prep for non-safety equipment (like, say, $1k worth of intake stuff, SIR, and tuning) for one car only seems fundamentally off to me.

2) I&#39;m tired of everyone accusing E36 owners of being a phallus with a sense of entitlement. If the E36 gets special treatment (and the SIR is awfully special) then this whole stupid episode will never end.

tom [/b]

Thanks Tom - what I meant with the question, and obviously didn&#39;t do a very good job verbalizing, was are there any other options besides weight or a restrictor that could be used to slow the car down. Would a mandated rear end gear, or rev limiter, or anything else do the trick, or are these the only two options? I was just trying to think outside the box :D

[lateapex911]

I imagine that if the E36 was initially spec&#39;d @ 3000#, the vast majority of conversations around it might have been avoided. Who knows, the whole idea of PCAs may have never come up.
[/b]

Right and Wrong, Bill! ;)

Right on the weight...I imagine if the initial weight was 3000 or so, the issues would be less intense, and might slip under the radar.

Wong on the PCA thing. The BMW wasn&#39;t the only poster child, LOL. I assure you that I would have done the same thing BMW or not.

(edited to add smiley for Bill...)

[e36its]

Thanks Tom - what I meant with the question, and obviously didn&#39;t do a very good job verbalizing, was are there any other options besides weight or a restrictor that could be used to slow the car down. Would a mandated rear end gear, or rev limiter, or anything else do the trick, or are these the only two options? I was just trying to think outside the box :D[/b]
Ahhh, so I was supposed to read the question you actually wrote rather than the question I thought I read. See, that&#39;s where I got lost. Sometimes a quick refresher with grade-school reading comprehension would serve me well. :rolleyes:

I applaud the out of the box thinking in searching for a creative solution, but I&#39;m afraid I can be of little assistance. We&#39;re probably way above the technical level my tiny caveman mind can comprehend, so I&#39;m reduced to looking at the examples you provided: It strikes me that something like a mandated rear end gear or rev limiter might have a different impact from track to track depending on how the shift points play out. Seems too inconsistent to be a viable solution.

My concern with creative is that it still smacks of the E36 getting some sort of special treatment... I&#39;m already afraid of lynch mobs in the paddock from the unwashed IT masses. :D

[Harry Balszac]

Here is an update. BMW CCA Club Racing has proposed a rule change that would allow E36 ITS cars into J-Prepared WITHOUT an SIR.

If it passes--which it will--this will enable the vast majority of ITS E36 cars to leave ITS and compete (and be competitive) in JP.

Y&#39;all are gonna send nearly all the E36&#39;s out of ITS. Is this REALLY the desired outcome?

This is another reason why I believe this whole thing should be re-thought & re-done.

[mlytle]

Your right Marshall and that&#39;s where the mistake was made in the past. Like the shocks and coatings ect. there was more technology let into the class than the class was designed for. The correct thing would have been not to classify the car to start with. Now that that&#39;s out of the bag the correct thing is to bring the car back to a reasonble state of tune rather than throwing them away like RR shocks and engines like we have in the past.
[/b]
interesting vein here. i am specifically not being e36 specific with this. so if we take this to the next level, what level of tech is it designed for? are we locked into 70&#39;s/80&#39;s? is it destined to become vintage? how do we make accomodations for all the new tech cars that are waiting to be classed but don&#39;t fit the current tech "envelope"? maybe new classes that are focused on newer tech cars? add newer cars to the existing classes and accept obselesense of the older ones?

[mlytle]

Here is an update. BMW CCA Club Racing has proposed a rule change that would allow E36 ITS cars into J-Prepared WITHOUT an SIR.

If it passes--which it will--this will enable the vast majority of ITS E36 cars to leave ITS and compete (and be competitive) in JP.

Y&#39;all are gonna send nearly all the E36&#39;s out of ITS. Is this REALLY the desired outcome?

This is another reason why I believe this whole thing should be re-thought & re-done.
[/b]
in the wdcr marrs series there were 6-7 e36 drivers that ran on a semi regular basis in its. as of now, zero are planning on running in its after 01may. is the lack of participation all due to the sir? no, but if you didn&#39;t know that, the lack of any e36&#39;s on the grid is a very visual event. jury is still out on whether the elimination of the "class killer" will bring the ex-participants back out of their garages.

[gpeluso]

IMPROVED TOURING needs to look at the future that is coming faster than their reactions. New production cars built over the last five years have more HP than in the past. We are all discussing RX7&#39;s and BMW&#39;s that were built 12-15 years ago. Today&#39;s cars will fit in ITS and most above this class distinction. Will any car made over the last 7 years even fit in ITB or ITC? It is time to create a class above ITS. A real class, not ITEverything. Get rid of the letter designations( Example ITS,ITA,ITB). Go to something more understandable to new members( Example IT1,IT2,IT3). People can then understand that ITS is a faster group than ITA and ITA is faster than ITC. This system I beleive to be a turnoff or confusing to anyone not involved currently in SCCA. Times are changing, so must the car classifications. If these changing with the times don&#39;t start taking place IMPROVED TOURING will become a Vintage Group. And by the way it is not a bad idea to find a Vintage place for our older cars. The last suggestion I have would be to eliminate the regional class theory. Who&#39;s kidding who with this is just a regional group. You can still have regional races and national races.

Greg
My $0.02

[Bill Miller]

Right and Wrong, Bill!

Right on the weight...I imagine if the initial weight was 3000 or so, the issues would be less intense, and might slip under the radar.

Wong on the PCA thing. The BMW wasn&#39;t the only poster child, LOL. I assure you that I would have done the same thing BMW or not.
[/b]


I didn&#39;t say it wouldn&#39;t Jake, I said it might not have come up. I agree, there were other cars that needed addressing. You will also recall that I&#39;ve been a champion of a standardized classification process for quite some time now.

[Joe Harlan]

IMPROVED TOURING needs to look at the future that is coming faster than their reactions. New production cars built over the last five years have more HP than in the past. We are all discussing RX7&#39;s and BMW&#39;s that were built 12-15 years ago. Today&#39;s cars will fit in ITS and most above this class distinction. Will any car made over the last 7 years even fit in ITB or ITC? It is time to create a class above ITS. A real class, not ITEverything. Get rid of the letter designations( Example ITS,ITA,ITB). Go to something more understandable to new members( Example IT1,IT2,IT3). People can then understand that ITS is a faster group than ITA and ITA is faster than ITC. This system I beleive to be a turnoff or confusing to anyone not involved currently in SCCA. Times are changing, so must the car classifications. If these changing with the times don&#39;t start taking place IMPROVED TOURING will become a Vintage Group. And by the way it is not a bad idea to find a Vintage place for our older cars. The last suggestion I have would be to eliminate the regional class theory. Who&#39;s kidding who with this is just a regional group. You can still have regional races and national races.

Greg
My $0.02
[/b]

Greg I agree but most of those cars will remain in touring classes for quite some time and I personally believe that if the SIR were used on most of them to limit them to their stock numbers they would still fit in ITS at this point. There will come a time when a new class is needed or the load needs to be shifted south.

[Z3_GoCar]

If I recall correctly, the age out of touring is 10 years. This october guess how old my racing Z3 will be? That&#39;s right the 2.8l Z3 will be orphaned from touring either at the end of this year or next. Something need to be done :unsure: maybe I could drop in an M44 and race e-prod, they don&#39;t care about the vin there and you can build your car from any base, but I&#39;d hate to have to make a billet crank and h-beam rod motor, but with different cam&#39;s and a dual webber carb kit I&#39;m sure it&#39;d make competitive power, for $50-$75K. Maybe even make the promised 25% increase :P

James

[Bill Miller]

Greg I agree but most of those cars will remain in touring classes for quite some time and I personally believe that if the SIR were used on most of them to limit them to their stock numbers they would still fit in ITS at this point. There will come a time when a new class is needed or the load needs to be shifted south.
[/b]


Joe,

That time is now. Just a quick look at T2, and here are some cars that could run IT today, if there were a place for them:

97-01 Integra Type R
E36 M3
01 E46 M3
E36 328
01 E46 330
Z3 2.8
00-01 S2000
00-01 Boxster S
97-98 Supra

And that was ignoring all the Mustangs/Camaros/Firedbirds that would be eligible. The time for a class above ITS is now.

[x-ring]

Come on, Bill. You forgot my favorite. &#39;90-&#39;95 300ZX (Z32)

[Bill Miller]

Ty,

I know there are a TON of other cars that would fit. I just picked some current T2 cars that would fit. Probably another 2x cars that would be naturals to drop right in, and several T2 and T3 cars that will be eligible in another year or two. I&#39;m going to start another thread on this, to see if we can get a few people to seriously work on crafting a car list for this new class. If we can put together a solid proposal, we should stand a chance of getting something going for next year. I&#39;m willing to help work on it.

[Mike Courtney]

Has there been any official notice that the 5-1-05 implementaion date for the 29 sir was a typo? Don&#39;t see any addendum. There are races in April. If one were to show up for a race in April with an ITS E36 what should he / she assume the rules are?

1. Must run a 29 sir? Rule says in effect 5-1-05. Are they even available for this weekend?
2. 4-1-06 rule for 27 sir would seem to over rule even though this was published in March before April Fastrack?
3. FPR spec from last year since there has been mention on forums that April Fastrack was a typo? Doesn&#39;t seem forum comments would over ride a written rule.

The last thing that should happen on top of this whole mess is that someone has to deal with a protest becasue of an uncorrected typo = or maybe it is not a typo??

Any comments?

[lateapex911]

Well, I know it&#39;s a typo. Should have read 5.1.06. Until then the FPR is the best choice, IMHO. But I&#39;m not an official... I&#39;ll run it up the flagpole and see what shakes out.

[Mike Courtney]

SCCA has posted a tech bulletin on the SCCA Garage page that clears this matter up for us. Thank you!
http://scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/06-04a.pdf

[lateapex911]

Ran it up the flagpole, LOL. Thank Stan Rider, CRB guy, who made the phone call that got it done.

[dj10]

Ran it up the flagpole, LOL. Thank Stan Rider, CRB guy, who made the phone call that got it done. [/b]

I hate like hell going against my word, but I just had to post this.
I hope the CRB will extend us a month or 2 to get this damn restrictor straightened out or make a rule, how they exactly want this mounted. Sorry we don&#39;t have BMW&#39;s R&R faculity to use. Almost certain we will have to have chips burnt for this damn thing. They waited 6 yrs. how about a couple more months to make sure things are right and that we can compete.

[BMW RACER]

DJ
Good point, I was thinking the same thing. I can plumb in the SIR fairly easy but I&#39;m concerned about damaging the motor if it runs too lean. I need to find a reliable dyno shop in the area (Los Angeles) that can test the car and make whatever programing changes are required.

WHO DO WE SPEAK TO TO REQUEST MORE TIME? (STAN RYDER?)

Would have been a lot easier to throw on some extra weight.

[dj10]

DJ
Good point, I was thinking the same thing. I can plumb in the SIR fairly easy but I&#39;m concerned about damaging the motor if it runs too lean. I need to find a reliable dyno shop in the area (Los Angeles) that can test the car and make whatever programing changes are required.

WHO DO WE SPEAK TO TO REQUEST MORE TIME? (STAN RYDER?)

Would have been a lot easier to throw on some extra weight. [/b]

Just email the crb@scc ([email protected])a.com.

What John, you don&#39;t have a R&D Shop at your disposal! :o Gheez, I have the BMW Factory Race Team coming up to get my car and install the SIR, then Boris, Said..<pun intented>........he would test it for me.

I voted against the weight when I thought they were going to stuff it all in the footwell. Since they gave us the passanger side for the weight, I admit I think I screwed the pooch. Oh well, won&#39;t be the 1st time or the last.

[JamesB]

they gave the passanger side but not till next year.

[JeffYoung]

If they had given you 300 lbs, or even 200 lbs, and you had put it on the passenger floorboard where they seat used to be in anticipation of the 2007 rule, and someone protested you, I&#39;d be very disappointed.

[dj10]

they gave the passanger side but not till next year. [/b]

Oh my! I need to start reading more carefully. Naaaaaaaaa this is a Joke right? :o

That&#39;s the biggest pile of S&(# ! Why did they implement a SIR 5 months into the year and won&#39;t rule on something that make so much common sense until next damn year!!!??? Does anyone else see the irony in this??

Well I&#39;m over riding the CRB rule!!!!!!! Everyone is allowed right now to put weight as per the CRB ruling starting right now!!! Anyone who protests anyone for this will be shot, if the survive they will be shot again. :D :cavallo:
dj

[mlytle]

Ran it up the flagpole, LOL. Thank Stan Rider, CRB guy, who made the phone call that got it done.
[/b]

pretty sorry state of affairs that a phone call had to be made to make this happen...instead of someone at national actually proof reading the copy and making an immediate correction/statement/tech bulletin. especially given the heated focus this issue has had for the last 4 months. lame.

and completely agree with you dj...gotta wait till next year for simple ballast move rule change, but get a few weeks to implement a not-so-simple restrictor design. sheesh.

[Harry Balszac]

You guys are surprised by any of this?

Same ol&#39; same ol&#39; from this crew. Sigh..

Lather/Rinse/Repeat


:bash_1_:

[dj10]

You guys are surprised by any of this?

Same ol&#39; same ol&#39; from this crew. Sigh..

Lather/Rinse/Repeat
:bash_1_: [/b]

Harry Dave,
Relax man, didn&#39;t you see where I over rode the CRB&#39;s ruling and I personally implemented the rule as of 3/31/06. So don&#39;t worry, if anyone protests you tell them to call ME @ 1.800. EAT. SHI&. :023:

[Harry Balszac]

Harry Dave,
Relax man, didn&#39;t you see where I over rode the CRB&#39;s ruling and I personally implemented the rule as of 3/31/06. So don&#39;t worry, if anyone protests you tell them to call ME @ 1.800. EAT. SHI&. :023:
[/b]


LMMFAO...I missed that. NEED MORE COFFEE !!!!

:023:

[Knestis]

... I voted against the weight when I thought they were going to stuff it all in the footwell. Since they gave us the passanger side for the weight, I admit I think I screwed the pooch. Oh well, won&#39;t be the 1st time or the last. [/b]

I&#39;m impressed with this statement.

It&#39;s a shame that the ballast rule and e36 re-spec process weren&#39;t handled in an integrated way. The "crew" HAD to have some motivation for making this situation so complicated and, if it were possible to understand those motivations, we&#39;d be at the real root of the current mess.

K

[Bill Miller]

I&#39;m impressed with this statement.

It&#39;s a shame that the ballast rule and e36 re-spec process weren&#39;t handled in an integrated way. The "crew" HAD to have some motivation for making this situation so complicated and, if it were possible to understand those motivations, we&#39;d be at the real root of the current mess.

K
[/b]


Boy, did you hit the nail on the head!

[DoubleXL240Z]

Sports
Car
Club of
Asia

[lateapex911]

Actually, I was suprised and disappointed by the ruling on the ballast.

My understanding, (and I say "understanding" becuse there has been a lot of accusations and slander here lately aimed a guys who have tried to repeat what they were told from other sources.)...

....is that the rule change was actually discussed long ago. But for some reason that I am unaware of, it never made it into fastrack.

I assume (again, don&#39;t shoot me, I&#39;m just the piano player) that it didn&#39;t make it thru the process far enough to have been voted on, and therefore it couldn&#39;t be handled as an errors and omissions deal.

So, it&#39;s a rulechange, not a clarification, and I guess that means that it has to wait until next year.

We tried, but sometimes the gears don&#39;t mesh as they should. Sucks.

(disclaimer for the conspiracy theorists: I wasn&#39;t in the process after it left the ITAC the second time, and I wasn&#39;t around the first time. I am merely looking at the situation, using what I have been told and making some logical conclusions. Don&#39;t take it to the bank, I&#39;m just trying to shed a little light.)

[mlytle]

well, at least bmwcca can move quickly to take advantage of the situation..this just posted to the bmw forums and boards by the bmwcca cr pres...


note, they even locked down the weight for its cars at 2850, no matter what scca does.
__________________________________________________ ________________________
I am happy to announce a mid-season rules change, as allowed by the BMW CCA Club Racing Rules Process.

Page 20, Section 2 "SCCA Classifications" Paragraph F currently reads:

Competitors choosing to compete under SCCA rules must comply with all
that series&#39; requirements (including restrictors, weight, etc).

As of Wednesday, April 3rd, this paragraph is changed to read:

Competitors choosing to compete under SCCA rules must comply
with all that series&#39; requirements, except that any and all
mandated intake restrictions (including restrictor plates,
SIR devices, etc) may be removed. Cars must be run at the
mandated SCCA IT weight, except for those cars which have
an ITS weight specified in the table of chassis weights.

Additionally, a line is added to the Appendix D "Official Vehicle Specifications" :

ITS BMW E36 325i/is 1992-1995 (2 & 4dr) 2850 lbs

Interpretation: This allows E36 BMW&#39;s running under the SCCA ITS rules to compete with us in the appropriate Prepared class at the specified weight without the SIR or other intake restrictor. If SCCA / IT decides to change their specified weight for this chassis, the weight required to run under CCA CR stays at the number listed in our rulebook.

Cars running under SCCA ITS rules must meet every other aspect of the SCCA GCR exactly (there is no mixing and matching between CR and ITS car preparation rules).

Drivers running ITS cars at our races must me the BMW CCA CR guidelines for personal safety gear (including HANS, etc).

If you have friends that race E36s in ITS, let them know that they can race their cars in BMW CR without the dreaded SIR (or any horrific weight increase).

[seckerich]

well, at least bmwcca can move quickly to take advantage of the situation..this just posted to the bmw forums and boards by the bmwcca cr pres...
note, they even locked down the weight for its cars at 2850, no matter what scca does.
__________________________________________________ ________________________
I am happy to announce a mid-season rules change, as allowed by the BMW CCA Club Racing Rules Process.

Page 20, Section 2 "SCCA Classifications" Paragraph F currently reads:

Competitors choosing to compete under SCCA rules must comply with all
that series&#39; requirements (including restrictors, weight, etc).

As of Wednesday, April 3rd, this paragraph is changed to read:

Competitors choosing to compete under SCCA rules must comply
with all that series&#39; requirements, except that any and all
mandated intake restrictions (including restrictor plates,
SIR devices, etc) may be removed. Cars must be run at the
mandated SCCA IT weight, except for those cars which have
an ITS weight specified in the table of chassis weights.

Additionally, a line is added to the Appendix D "Official Vehicle Specifications" :

ITS BMW E36 325i/is 1992-1995 (2 & 4dr) 2850 lbs

Interpretation: This allows E36 BMW&#39;s running under the SCCA ITS rules to compete with us in the appropriate Prepared class at the specified weight without the SIR or other intake restrictor. If SCCA / IT decides to change their specified weight for this chassis, the weight required to run under CCA CR stays at the number listed in our rulebook.

Cars running under SCCA ITS rules must meet every other aspect of the SCCA GCR exactly (there is no mixing and matching between CR and ITS car preparation rules).

Drivers running ITS cars at our races must me the BMW CCA CR guidelines for personal safety gear (including HANS, etc).

If you have friends that race E36s in ITS, let them know that they can race their cars in BMW CR without the dreaded SIR (or any horrific weight increase).
[/b]
This makes sense for BMWCCA as your classes have been BALANCED for the different prep levels for just one make of car. Swimming in a different pond with SCCA--have to learn to play nice with all the children!! :D

[RSTPerformance]

shoot i don&#39;t know what SIR thread to post my question!!! 12 pages, hope someone actually gives the SIR a try... I think for me I would rather win with an SIR than just take a trophey without a challenge like years past for good drivers with decent preped cars.... IE: I hope someone out thier welcomes and wins the new challenge!!!

Raymond

[dj10]

If you have friends that race E36s in ITS, let them know that they can race their cars in BMW CR without the dreaded SIR (or any horrific weight increase). [/b]

I&#39;m happy for BMW Club Racing, with the exception of the manditory Hans there rulings are good IMO.
I do believe that you are looking at this one sided. The BMW Club is only racing BMW&#39;s. The SCCA is trying to keep many different manufactures equal. I want to race everything,..including rice grinders and if I&#39;m not competitive with the SIR, I have other options.

[dj10]

Actually, I was suprised and disappointed by the ruling on the ballast.

My understanding, (and I say "understanding" becuse there has been a lot of accusations and slander here lately aimed a guys who have tried to repeat what they were told from other sources.)...

....is that the rule change was actually discussed long ago. But for some reason that I am unaware of, it never made it into fastrack.

I assume (again, don&#39;t shoot me, I&#39;m just the piano player) that it didn&#39;t make it thru the process far enough to have been voted on, and therefore it couldn&#39;t be handled as an errors and omissions deal.

So, it&#39;s a rulechange, not a clarification, and I guess that means that it has to wait until next year.

We tried, but sometimes the gears don&#39;t mesh as they should. Sucks.

(disclaimer for the conspiracy theorists: I wasn&#39;t in the process after it left the ITAC the second time, and I wasn&#39;t around the first time. I am merely looking at the situation, using what I have been told and making some logical conclusions. Don&#39;t take it to the bank, I&#39;m just trying to shed a little light.) [/b]

Jake, I don&#39;t know who you are refering to about being slandered. If it is true, this is no way for adults to act. I will disagree big time with you about pushing the weight ruking pushed back to 2007. This is total nonsense, unless I&#39;m missing something about rule making here. As I would think the Chairman of the CRB has the authority to implement any rule that was passed by the committee when ever he/ or she fills fit.

If the gears aren&#39;t meshing, it&#39;s time to fix the syncronizer! :023:

[Andy Bettencourt]

While I agre that rule changes (in some instances) should be able to be made must more swiftly, I think this one is a moot point. I do not believe the CRB is considering anything but the SIR for the E36.

It is unfortunate, but I think the SIR is a one deal.

AB

[dj10]

While I agre that rule changes (in some instances) should be able to be made must more swiftly, I think this one is a moot point. I do not believe the CRB is considering anything but the SIR for the E36.

It is unfortunate, but I think the SIR is a one deal.

AB [/b]

This shouldn&#39;t be a moot point. The weight placement rule is a very good and a great common sense rule for the benefit of all makes, models and class. Please don&#39;t mess up what could help all that are involved. Enact this NOW. It&#39;s only a matter of typing a technical directive up and posting it. I agree AB, that some tech changes need not to be made quickly, maybe like the SIR, ;) but when a change is needed quickly the ITAC, CRB & the CRB Chairman needs to act decisively. I have very recently found out how the ruling process works. I still believe the process has to change to effectively to make the CRB more efficient. If the BMW club can do it, the SCCA should be able to.

As much as I hate the thought of the SIR, I respect the CRB for making difficult decesion and stick by their guns. They are in a tought position dealing with all the manufactures and I bet right now they wished they only had 1 to deal with. :D

[JeffYoung]

And the result appears to me to be that most ITS BMWs are headed to JP. Not what the CRB intended I am sure, but the effect nonetheless.

[lateapex911]

Points of clarification. (Not aimed at you DJ, LOL)

1- The slandering I was referring to was made by certain posters here and on other forums, and aimed at members of the ITAC, and were based on the fact that the ITAC members -

A- Repeated what they were told by others higher up the food chain about certain SCCA policys or data,
or
B- Were involved in the eyes of the poster in ways that displeased them.

Since I am merely reporting what I think the situation is, I want to be clear that I am not stating anything as first person fact, as I just don&#39;t know, but rather aas a pretty well educated guess. and I won&#39;t tolerate any slandering becuase it was taken as fact. In other words, enough is enough...we&#39;re (ITAC guys) happy to try and clear things up, but we need to be treated fairly.

2- The weight "issue" I was referring to was the placement rule, not the weight vs the SIR.

3- The ITAC made it&#39;s opinion known to the CRB and has also made it&#39;s opinion known regarding the timing of the SIR implementation. Input has been recieved from the SCCA population, and if there is more that anyone feels needs to be said, I encourage them to submit it.

4- The PLACEMENT rule was what I referring to in my post, and I thought it was a done deal long ago, but evidently, it wasn&#39;t and needs to be handled by the book, it appears.

[dj10]

Points of clarification. (Not aimed at you DJ, LOL)

1- The slandering I was referring to was made by certain posters here and on other forums, and aimed at members of the ITAC, and were based on the fact that the ITAC members -

A- Repeated what they were told by others higher up the food chain about certain SCCA policys or data,
or
B- Were involved in the eyes of the poster in ways that displeased them.

Since I am merely reporting what I think the situation is, I want to be clear that I am not stating anything as first person fact, as I just don&#39;t know, but rather aas a pretty well educated guess. and I won&#39;t tolerate any slandering becuase it was taken as fact. In other words, enough is enough...we&#39;re (ITAC guys) happy to try and clear things up, but we need to be treated fairly.

2- The weight "issue" I was referring to was the placement rule, not the weight vs the SIR.

3- The ITAC made it&#39;s opinion known to the CRB and has also made it&#39;s opinion known regarding the timing of the SIR implementation. Input has been recieved from the SCCA population, and if there is more that anyone feels needs to be said, I encourage them to submit it.

4- The PLACEMENT rule was what I referring to in my post, and I thought it was a done deal long ago, but evidently, it wasn&#39;t and needs to be handled by the book, it appears. [/b]

You guys really need to be thick skinned. As far as the people makings such remarks, you just have to consider the source, this maybe be easier said than done. :unsure: As far as the weight placement, I was told it had to go to the BoD, which it is why it takes so long. Hell, you might as well send it to the U.S. Senate! :D Times are changing and the SCCA better be able to change with the times.

I was also told that an extension of another month for the implementation of the SIR would have nothing to gain. Well........I think you are seeing part of this effect now and there may be more to come. :(

And the result appears to me to be that most ITS BMWs are headed to JP. Not what the CRB intended I am sure, but the effect nonetheless.

Ouch, what did SCCA do to Bill Alberlin at St. Pete&#39;s??!! They said with the 400 rpm drop and the weight Alberlin said forget it, it&#39;s not worth racing the BMW.

[DoubleD]

This makes sense for BMWCCA as your classes have been BALANCED for the different prep levels for just one make of car. Swimming in a different pond with SCCA--have to learn to play nice with all the children!! :D
[/b]

With many disparate models in each class...and we have accepted that some cars make better race cars than others at a given, equal level of prep. The only thing that differs in each class is the assigned weight and that weight is rock-solid steady.

[Bill Miller]

With many disparate models in each class...and we have accepted that some cars make better race cars than others at a given, equal level of prep. The only thing that differs in each class is the assigned weight and that weight is rock-solid steady.
[/b]


That may well be true DD, for cars built to BMWCCA class rules, but there are cars w/ different prep levels competing in the same class.

[Geo]

With many disparate models in each class...and we have accepted that some cars make better race cars than others at a given, equal level of prep. The only thing that differs in each class is the assigned weight and that weight is rock-solid steady.
[/b]

I&#39;m sorry but this is just silliness. Weight must ALWAYS be considered in the equation. Classify one car at a buttload less weight and of course it will make a better race car than the others.




As far as the weight placement, I was told it had to go to the BoD, which it is why it takes so long. Hell, you might as well send it to the U.S. Senate! :D Times are changing and the SCCA better be able to change with the times.
[/b]

DJ, FWIW, certain types of changes can be approved directly by the CRB and implemented immediately. Others must be approved by the BOD. I am not as up on the nuances of this, but since I have no direct impact on making an official rule change, I don&#39;t have the need to know it in detail (IOW it&#39;s outside my scope so I haven&#39;t bothered commiting it all to memory).

As for BMWCCACR being more flexible, I believe the rules of governing this stuff is set in the by-laws of the club (SCCA). As such, they simply must be followed. If you think they should be changed, please, by all means write to the BOD. That is NOT meant to be smart-alek or snotty, just forthright.