April SIR ruling

[e36its]

The ruling is in: 29mm SIR effective 05/01/2006.
April Fastrack (http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/06-4-fastrack.pdf)

I'm a little disappointed test results were never published, to be honest.

tom

[edit: I wrote 2007 when I meant 2006... and the rules say 2005!]

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't know if that was the place for them to be posted but I will push to make sure there is a write up posted somewhere.

AB

[stevel]

The ruling is in: 29mm SIR effective 05/01/2007.
[/b]

Where did you see that? All I saw was this -- >

"Improved Touring
ITS
1. Effective 5/1/05: BMW 325i/is (2 & 4 door) (92-95), p. 18, change the specs to read as follows: Notes: Trunk mounted fuel cell with no
larger capacity than stock. 29mm SIR required and must comply with GTCS section 17.1.2.F.4.i.10."

And this was at the top of that section
"All changes are effective 4/1/06 unless otherwise noted."

steve

[Andy Bettencourt]

Cripes. The flippin FT has a typo. All those tech bullitens are effective 4-1-06 unless otherwise noted. The date on the E36 item should have been 5-1-06, not 05.

AB

[dj10]

I don't know if that was the place for them to be posted but I will push to make sure there is a write up posted somewhere.

AB [/b]

AB,
Can you ask or find out why no results were posted as promised? Did they ever rule on the weight placement issue?
Thanks
dj

[stevel]

Did they ever rule on the weight placement issue?
[/b]

Read the FT.

[seckerich]

AB,
Can you ask or find out why no results were posted as promised? Did they ever rule on the weight placement issue?
Thanks
dj
[/b]
Check the April fastrac thread DJ, it was addressed.

[buldogge]

Hey Andy... Could you or George please comment on the 161hp dyno posted over on Bimmerforums that George was witness to.

Please tell me you have some other information regarding the need for placement ahead of the HFM (as Mr. David Finch points out to be the "issue") and its possible implementation garnered from the various dyno tests you witnessed/were party to.

TIA



I don't know if that was the place for them to be posted but I will push to make sure there is a write up posted somewhere.

AB
[/b]

[DoubleD]

The ruling is in: 29mm SIR effective 05/01/2007.
April Fastrack (http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/06-4-fastrack.pdf)

I'm a little disappointed test results were never published, to be honest.

tom
[/b]

Here ya go. This dyno is a 29mm SIR on a freshly built (1 race w/ BMWCCA) Stickley motor, custom tune non-Motec. This is, excepting the 3 or 4 ponies Motec may provide, a max motor. I don't have the baseline or I would happily post it as well.

An ITAC member was in attendance and witnessed that the install and dyno are legit. The car would not reve past 3k rpm w/ the SIR in front of the HFM.

And yes, I was fully aware of this dyno when I posted weeks ago. The owner of this car now states that he will not race with SCCA in any class.

http://fmjmotorsports.com/29mm%20SIR.jpg

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here ya go. This dyno is a 29mm SIR on a freshly built (1 race w/ BMWCCA) Stickley motor, custom tune non-Motec. This is, excepting the 3 or 4 ponies Motec may provide, a max motor. I don't have the baseline or I would happily post it as well.

[/b]

The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision (although he did set a track record in Texas recently!).

19whp taken off the top with 5 ft/lbs lost.

AB

[e36its]

Where did you see that? All I saw was this -- >
"Improved Touring
ITS
1. Effective 5/1/05: BMW 325i/is"[/b]Mea culpa, fingers got ahead of me and wrote 2007 (despite the 2005 typo in the FT... guess I moved a year in the wrong direction adjusting for the typo!).

tom

[DoubleD]

The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision (although he did set a track record in Texas recently!).

19whp taken off the top with 5 ft/lbs lost.

AB
[/b]

We were told, by you, that the SIR would cap power, not cut it accross the entire usable RPM range. So much that, eh?

At least Finch is only charging a 25% restocking fee on the 27mm SIR. :bash_1_:

Well, on the bright side, the RX7 just got more valuable and, being as it is the car to have, folks building/tuning them will now have a financial opportunity.

[rx3sp]

The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision

AB
[/b]

Um... according to previous posts by the backmarkers, the SIR should penalize all motors down to a certain level, and the original horsepower level is inconsequential.

So then why do you mention it here ?

P.S. please stop misusing the word "decision". The process used here by the ITAC and CRB definitely does not meet this definition:

DECISION: a position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration; "a decision unfavorable to the opposition"; "his conclusion took the evidence into account"; "satisfied with the panel's determination"

RX3SP

[e36its]

The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision (although he did set a track record in Texas recently!).
19whp taken off the top with 5 ft/lbs lost.[/b]
Somewhat confused... I thought since the SIR doesn't affect airflow below a certain HP level a low(er) HP motor would be less affected. If the calculated output for the 29mm is 180 RWHP, wouldn't we expect a motor making 180 RWHP to be virtually unaffected and one making 205 RWHP to be losing 25 RWHP?

tom

[dj10]

The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision (although he did set a track record in Texas recently!).

19whp taken off the top with 5 ft/lbs lost.

AB [/b]

AB, for a fact this BMW you know had a baseline of 180 rwhp without the SIR correct? If this is the case, #1. I don't believe this is a Stickley motor, I know for a fact that his baseline engines are much higher than 180 rwhp with FPR restrictors and without SIR's.

[rx3sp]

Well, on the bright side, the RX7 just got more valuable and, being as it is the car to have, folks building/tuning them will now have a financial opportunity.
[/b]

Actually, you are only partially correct. The 944 is the car to have, if you want to win a race mano a mano.

However, in the new way of doing things in IT, there are no races without handicappinng winners until the RX7 wins.

so, you are right, in the new world world of Sissy C. A. Improved Touring,

[DoubleD]

AB, for a fact this BMW you know had a baseline of 180 rwhp without the SIR correct? If this is the case, #1. I don't believe this is a Stickley motor, I know for a fact that his baseline engines are much higher than 180 rwhp with FPR restrictors and without SIR's.
[/b]

It was over 180. I'll see if I can get the baseline. Also, and more importantly, comparing hp numbers from diffeerent dyno's is a tricky business. I've seen variation of 5% in stock E46 M3 motors from dyno to dyno. Heck, I've seen a dyno plot that showed a 100% stock E46 M3 making, if you assume a conservative drivetrain loss, 360chp. Obviously it was not....the dyno was just reading a bit high.

[lateapex911]

Here ya go. This dyno is a 29mm SIR on a freshly built (1 race w/ BMWCCA) Stickley motor, custom tune non-Motec. This is, excepting the 3 or 4 ponies Motec may provide, a max motor. I don't have the baseline or I would happily post it as well.

An ITAC member was in attendance and witnessed that the install and dyno are legit. The car would not reve past 3k rpm w/ the SIR in front of the HFM.

And yes, I was fully aware of this dyno when I posted weeks ago. The owner of this car now states that he will not race with SCCA in any class.

http://fmjmotorsports.com/29mm%20SIR.jpg
[/b]

What's interesting about that run is what it really revealed. Not much. Scientific procedures require tossing out that data point as the A/F ratio was off the mark...by a lot. lok at the graph and note the lean condition. I understand that the baseline for that car also had similar issues with the A/F ratio. In short, that car wasn't a good indicator. Custom programmed chip or not, it wasn't putting down proper power levels in baseline trim.

Observations show that the car does adjust for such things, and the jagged line might be an indication of just that.

It's too bad that those results were pretty much voided by the tuning issues going in. I know we all appreciate the owners time and trouble. And perhaps he learned something too.

A note on the SIR. I had expected to see a commentary regarding the best placement, but it appears that it's not there. From observations, I would advise that the SIR be placed AFTER the AFM. The AFM seems to like a clean and linear stream of air, which is best found right after the filter and before the SIR.

So, it should be installed in this order:
Outside air>air filter>AFM>SIR>TB>manifold> pistons, etc. All air, of course, must pass through the SIR.

Also, I have been informed that inquiries to the supplying companies indicate that only Raetech had sold any SIRs, and will exchange the 27mm insert for a 29mm insert, at no cost.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The sheets are up on Bimmerforus.com. 180whp is the baseline.

I hesitate to put words in the CRB's mouth before they post a summary but the questions regarding the power output are valid. 2 issues I am aware of:

1. The SIR needs to be placed AFTER the HFM. The velocity of the air seemingly freeked the thing out to the point the cars did not run well - AT ALL. Placing them behind the HFM brought back the driveability.

2. SIR's do have an effect on all states of tune as shown by this and other pieces of data. This was a factor the CRB had to weigh in their decision.

To the proponents of weight, the same can be said for that as well. If you are running an underdeveloped car, a weight set based on a cars potential (like all the weights for all the cars are) will hurt as well.

Here is the baseline run DoubleD.

http://www.soulspeed.com/images/racecar/dyno%20-%20baseline.jpg

AB

[gpeluso]

It was over 180. I'll see if I can get the baseline. Also, and more importantly, comparing hp numbers from diffeerent dyno's is a tricky business. I've seen variation of 5% in stock E46 M3 motors from dyno to dyno. Heck, I've seen a dyno plot that showed a 100% stock E46 M3 making, if you assume a conservative drivetrain loss, 360chp. Obviously it was not....the dyno was just reading a bit high.
[/b]

:unsure: Obviously the SIR does not perform they way we were TOLD by ITAC. 161whp, what can you do with that? Is this the final word from the SCCA? Can someone from the SCCA step in and stop the madness from the ITAC and the CRB? This decision will hurt all car counts in ITS. The fight has been fought and the BMW guys lost......hopefully the SCCA regions realize this will hurt their bottom line. Some regions may suffer more than others. Does anyone care? Long live the MAZDA. Where can I get one of those?

Greg

[lateapex911]

It was over 180. ....[/b]

You are right. I have the plot on my computer. Baseline indicated a power of over 180. To be exact, it was 180.01 at approx 6100 rpm. Torque was 174.69.

Engine was reported to be a Stikley, one race, custom chip.

[gpeluso]

:o

You are right. I have the plot on my computer. Baseline indicated a power of over 180. To be exact, it was 180.01 at approx 6100 rpm. Torque was 174.69.

Engine was reported to be a Stikley, one race, custom chip.
[/b]
:o
Jake,

Stickley builds one of the best motors. I thought the problem was that all the pro motors where something like 225whp. I'm lost here. Chuck's motors are just as good as Sunbelts. Help us out with the reason for the SIR at all if your findings were a pro built motor producing 180.01 whp. Are you telling us that if I pay Stickley $8,000 for an engine I will end up with motor after SIR producing 161 whp and a car weighing 2850 lbs. That's 20 whp less than an RX7 and over 150 lbs more. BAD TIMING, BAD DECISION.

Greg

[Andy Bettencourt]

:o
:o
Jake,

Stickley builds one of the best motors. I thought the problem was that all the pro motors where something like 225whp. I'm lost here. Chuck's motors are just as good as Sunbelts. Help us out with the reason for the SIR at all if your findings were a pro built motor producing 180.01 whp. Are you telling us that if I pay Stickley $8,000 for an engine I will end up with motor after SIR producing 161 whp and a car weighing 2850 lbs. That's 20 whp less than an RX7 and over 150 lbs more. BAD TIMING, BAD DECISION.

Greg [/b]

I like where you say you are lost. You are right!

No verification of 225whp has EVER been produced. Pure rumor. We have data from 180-210. I am sure there are lower versions out there - but who cares? The beauty of IT is that you can run your stock motor and have fun until you build to the limit of the class - then, and only then, should you expect to run at the front, should the driver be up to the task.

Did you read DJ's post? 180whp is NOT a good effort for a E36 325 in IT trim. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.

Your numbers example is a tough one. Is that car competitive? Nope...but it is 25-30whp off the mark right from the start so even if it ran unrestricted, there is no way it could compete with properly built stuff. Get in the game.

[rx3sp]

180whp is NOT a good effort for a E36 325 in IT trim.
[/b]


Fine.

Then you or the ITAC or the CRB please post the other dyno sheets.
Also, while you're at it, how about an RX7 dyno sheet.... one without the 6 port valves still installed...

RX3SP

[seckerich]

I like where you say you are lost. You are right!

No verification of 225whp has EVER been produced. Pure rumor. We have data from 180-210. I am sure there are lower versions out there - but who cares? The beauty of IT is that you can run your stock motor and have fun until you build to the limit of the class - then, and only then, should you expect to run at the front, should the driver be up to the task.

Did you read DJ's post? 180whp is NOT a good effort for a E36 325 in IT trim. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.

Your numbers example is a tough one. Is that car competitive? Nope...but it is 25-30whp off the mark right from the start so even if it ran unrestricted, there is no way it could compete with properly built stuff. Get in the game.
[/b]
A good build with a chip only makes 198.6 on a dynojet with SAE correction. I know the owner and trust the numbers. The AF numbers on the sheet posted suck for power so try another example before you cry foul. The power curve is ragged at best before SIR and gets no better after. Total BS to use for any real arguement. I can make a Mazda dyno suck that bad if you want to use equal numbers. AB'S statement about this prep level is correct. :dead_horse:

[gpeluso]

I like where you say you are lost. You are right!

No verification of 225whp has EVER been produced. Pure rumor. We have data from 180-210. I am sure there are lower versions out there - but who cares? The beauty of IT is that you can run your stock motor and have fun until you build to the limit of the class - then, and only then, should you expect to run at the front, should the driver be up to the task.

Did you read DJ's post? 180whp is NOT a good effort for a E36 325 in IT trim. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.

Your numbers example is a tough one. Is that car competitive? Nope...but it is 25-30whp off the mark right from the start so even if it ran unrestricted, there is no way it could compete with properly built stuff. Get in the game.
[/b]
:rolleyes: AB,

If 180 whp isn't a good effort for ITS why was the goal set for 180whp with the SIR???????? I know Chuck's engine do produce more than that AB. If I'm Chuck, I'm pissed that you said this engine he built isn't a good effort.

Greg

[e36its]

Your numbers example is a tough one. Is that car competitive? Nope...but it is 25-30whp off the mark right from the start so even if it ran unrestricted, there is no way it could compete with properly built stuff. Get in the game.[/b]
All along we've had this idea that the BMW owners were given a gift with the SIR, right? It'll lop the top off and leave the rest alone. Are we putting that concept to rest as a result of this testing? What I'm seeing is a motor that got leaner and lost HP even though it was (unrestricted) making below the calculated max for the SIR size tested.

With a wry smile I note that losing HP + needing to tune (note the tune got leaner with the SIR in place) + having to come up with new intake + buying an SIR feels like substantially less of a "gift".

tom

semi off topic, something I've been meaning to say for a while:
I dunno if I have to note this, but I am a BMW owner. I am not, nor have I ever, attempted to cast aspersions on the ITAC or their lineage. They are volunteers who (I suspect) are attempting to do what they feel is best for the class. I can't say I agree with the outcome of this process, but I also don't think they're trying to steal my lunch money and kick my dog.

[DoubleD]

Where can I get one of those?

Greg
[/b]

Flatout motorsports?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Flatout motorsports? [/b]

And that in itself sums you up. :015:



:rolleyes: AB,

If 180 whp isn't a good effort for ITS why was the goal set for 180whp with the SIR???????? I know Chuck's engine do produce more than that AB. If I'm Chuck, I'm pissed that you said this engine he built isn't a good effort.

Greg [/b]

Are you serious? An unrestricted 180whp effort is WAY off the mark. Sorry to tell you. If you know Chuck's engines produce more than that, then why are you arguing that the above dyno plot was one of his engines? I don't care who thinks what about that comment, 180whp is NOT the result you are looking for in a all-out effort. Actually, it's about a 15% improvment. You need to be in the 30% range on these cars.

Hello? Bueller?

[DoubleD]

And that in itself sums you up. :015:
[/b]

LOL. Do you or do you not make money on ITS RX7's?

26 ponies. Nice work! (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com/results.php#62)

[dj10]

You are right. I have the plot on my computer. Baseline indicated a power of over 180. To be exact, it was 180.01 at approx 6100 rpm. Torque was 174.69.

Engine was reported to be a Stikley, one race, custom chip. [/b]

Thanks for clearing this up on that car, Jake & AB. I would caution everyone when associating Chuck's name with this engine, as Plumbo said he might get ticked off :D , because there is no way in hell that's one of Chuck's engines. B)
What ever it is, is not what I would call a good baseline race car in which I would rely on it's data. Everyone needs to keep a clear head and not jump to any conclusions. Now we know what we have to use, I'm sure we will get other reports shortly. I just ordered my 29 mm SIR today. I know, at least for me I want to give it a try. If it doesn't work for some reason, I have other options.
I would of liked the SCCA to give us instructions on how to mount this SIR. It should be manditory to mount it a certain way.
dj

[seckerich]

LOL. Do you or do you not make money on ITS RX7's?

26 ponies. Nice work! (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com/results.php#62)
[/b]
Everyone on this board has an opinion and I guess has a right to express it. We may not agree and have arguements--but it is just differing points of view. You on the other hand are way out of line and give this forum a very bad rep with your personal attacks and insults to the ITAC and others. If you have problems with Andy or others a PM is the way to go. Otherwise the Wannabee in your signature I hope holds true forever. We can do without people like you in IT.

[rx3sp]

We can do without people like you in IT.
[/b]

You got your wish. So who's next for the SIR?
Your little club is getting smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller.

Pretty soon you will win every race. Yippee! I'm a regional champion!

RX3SP

[Andy Bettencourt]

LOL. Do you or do you not make money on ITS RX7's?

26 ponies. Nice work! (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com/results.php#62) [/b]

Actually, I have never pocketed one dollar. Someday, maybe. FOM is a part time business for all of us that is 90% Miata's and 10% RX-7's. Neither Nick or I own or race an RX-7 as of late 2005.

Your assertion that I am bias can be disputed by any ITAC or CRB member.

Was it nice work? You bet your ass it was.

AB

[Knestis]

Back when I was a junior high school teacher, I had a kid announce in front of the class that I was discriminating against him because he was black. I gave him a pass to see the principal, so he could file the official greivance with the district, warranted by that kind of treatment. He didn't do it, came back to class, and worked harder.

The moral as it applies here?

If you honestly believe that any ITAC or Board member is letting a vested interest influence his/her/their club business decisions, you have an obligation to either (a) make an official complaint to SCCA, or (B) shut the hell up.

K

[DoubleD]

Everyone on this board has an opinion and I guess has a right to express it. We may not agree and have arguements--but it is just differing points of view. You on the other hand are way out of line and give this forum a very bad rep with your personal attacks and insults to the ITAC and others. If you have problems with Andy or others a PM is the way to go. Otherwise the Wannabee in your signature I hope holds true forever. We can do without people like you in IT.
[/b]

That was not a personal attack, it was a statement of fact.

[seckerich]

You got your wish. So who's next for the SIR?
Your little club is getting smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller.

Pretty soon you will win every race. Yippee! I'm a regional champion!

RX3SP
[/b]
The post was about a personal attack--not the sir. But then I don't post with no name and signature like you.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thanks for clearing this up on that car, Jake & AB. I would caution everyone when associating Chuck's name with this engine, as Plumbo said he might get ticked off :D , because there is no way in hell that's one of Chuck's engines. B)
What ever it is, is not what I would call a good baseline race car in which I would rely on it's data. Everyone needs to keep a clear head and not jump to any conclusions. Now we know what we have to use, I'm sure we will get other reports shortly. I just ordered my 29 mm SIR today. I know, at least for me I want to give it a try. If it doesn't work for some reason, I have other options.
I would of liked the SCCA to give us instructions on how to mount this SIR. It should be manditory to mount it a certain way.
dj [/b]

DJ,

The validity of this data, solid or not, is exactly why the CRB and ITAC didn't slowly leak the info piece by piece. Assumptions and conclusions would be based on a lack of complete info. Again, the BMW guys, the rest of ITS and all of SCCA are due the conclusions and results...I will push to get them out asap.

Thanks for your patience and level-headedness on this.

AB

[rx3sp]

Actually, I have never pocketed one dollar.

AB
[/b]

Hey, its your decision to post here instead of posting a profit.

Maybe you should see if "flatout-motorsports.ORG" is taken.

RX3SP

[Singletrack1]

1. The SIR needs to be placed AFTER the HFM. The velocity of the air seemingly freeked the thing out to the point the cars did not run well - AT ALL. Placing them behind the HFM brought back the driveability.

[/b]

That is in direct contradiction to what David Finch told me when I told him about my dyno results. He stated it has to be in FRONT of the HFM to make the full 180HP. When I told him about my car and the other car not running past 3k with it in front of the HFM, he stated we need to do more development.

Why can't the CRB tell us how they got the car to run 180HP with the SIR in front of the HFM and give us the results of this final test where they tested SIR's up to 33mm?



2. SIR's do have an effect on all states of tune as shown by this and other pieces of data. This was a factor the CRB had to weigh in their decision.

[/b]

This is in direct contradiction to what the ITAC and CRB told us the effect of the SIR would be. I can quote your post and others that state that the SIR only caps HP and it should not have affected my 180HP baseline.

Yes, my car was lean and it has since been corrected.

So, the story changes - it went from "unless you have a full build making 200+HP, you won't be affected" to "YOU MUST DO A FULL BUILD INCLUDING MOTEC TO GET THE TAGETED 180HP".

It doesn't matter to me in the end as I will be moving on to NASA and BMWCCA. You guys can accuse me of taking my ball and going home and so be it. But, I can say I got kicked in the nuts and decided it was better to go home, than continue to get kicked in the nuts. :D I have no interest in fighting for position with drivers that I should be dominating.

Yes, I did get the track record by .1 second, but I thought track records didn't matter? :D

I am tired of all this and had made racing no fun at all. This is a great reminder of why I quit national SOLO II competition.

Bill Kim

[Knestis]

...and not surprisingly, people are still PO'd.

I'd of gone with lead, instead. e36 entrants would still be upset but there would be fewer side issues, red herrings, confusion, and distractions to deal with; and the math would be simpler to defend.

K

[Singletrack1]

...and not surprisingly, people are still PO'd.

I'd of gone with lead, instead. e36 entrants would still be upset but there would be fewer side issues, red herrings, confusion, and distractions to deal with; and the math would be simpler to defend.

K
[/b]

If they would only publish the Math. :dead_horse:

I'm interested in the actual formula, not the end result. If the formula is fair and legit, why not publish it?

Bill

[seckerich]

...and not surprisingly, people are still PO'd.

I'd of gone with lead, instead. e36 entrants would still be upset but there would be fewer side issues, red herrings, confusion, and distractions to deal with; and the math would be simpler to defend.

K
[/b]
AMEN brother and much easier to fix if it went too far. We all want even racing--not kill a class.

[stevel]

Yes, I did get the track record by .1 second, but I thought track records didn't matter? :D
[/b]

I'm sure they matter to someone. But it's a great example of how a sub par effort (not saying your whole effort is sub par but with 180whp it's certainly not all it could be) in a car that weighs 300lbs less than it should can still break track records. If that doesn't tell you that you didn't have an advantage then there's no convincing you.

s

[buldogge]

but Andy... The bottom line is...I though we were limiting output to 180 rwhp...??? Are you contending that he will, by re-tune, (not supposed to be necessary with the magical SIR) get 180 rwhp???

Originally...post after post stated that the not-full-effort cars...ie those with 180 rwhp "would not be affected"...what we are seeing here is that one of these aforementioned cars IS being affected to the tune of 20 rwhp by the invisible SIR.




And that in itself sums you up. :015:



Are you serious? An unrestricted 180whp effort is WAY off the mark. Sorry to tell you. If you know Chuck's engines produce more than that, then why are you arguing that the above dyno plot was one of his engines? I don't care who thinks what about that comment, 180whp is NOT the result you are looking for in a all-out effort. Actually, it's about a 15% improvment. You need to be in the 30% range on these cars.

Hello? Bueller?
[/b]

[Andy Bettencourt]

That is in direct contradiction to what David Finch told me when I told him about my dyno results. He stated it has to be in FRONT of the HFM to make the full 180HP. When I told him about my car and the other car not running past 3k with it behind the HFM, he stated we need to do more development.[/b]

Then so be it. Maybe we need to define 'in front of'. The SIR's do not work directly in front of the HFM. That is the air filter side. They have made the power after the HFM but before the throttle body.


Why can't the CRB tell us how they got the car to run 180HP with the SIR in front of the HFM and give us the results of this final test where they tested SIR's up to 33mm?[/b]

To correct you, they tested up to a 35mm - which lost all of 3-5hp. Again - there should be a summary coming out. NO test yeilded 180whp with the SIR in front of the HFM as defined by the above comments. After the HFM but well before the TB.


This is in direct contradiction to what the ITAC and CRB told us the effect of the SIR would be. I can quote your post and others that state that the SIR only caps HP and it should not have affected my 180HP baseline.[/b]

That has been stated earlier in this thread. There were items that were not 'as sold' to the CRB by Finch. The resultant effect on all cars was a data point the CRB had to weigh when deciding the outcome.


So, the story changes - it went from "unless you have a full build making 200+HP, you won't be affected" to "YOU MUST DO A FULL BUILD INCLUDING MOTEC TO GET THE TAGETED 180HP".[/b]

Unfortunately, yes. But I will say that if you want to be at the peak of the power to weight ratio of the class, you have to do that anyway. If you do the 100% build, you are in the same position as everyone else...same target pw/weight at 2850.


It doesn't matter to me in the end as I will be moving on to NASA and BMWCCA. You guys can accuse me of taking my ball and going home and so be it. But, I can say I got kicked in the nuts and decided it was better to go home, than continue to get kicked in the nuts. :D I have no interest in fighting for position with drivers that I should be dominating.[/b]

I understand.


Yes, I did get the track record by .1 second, but I thought track records didn't matter? [/b]

Especially when you are 25whp down from where you COULD be.

What formula do you want published - the 'process' for weight has been hashed over a hundred times, the SIR stuff is for engineers - the END RESULT IS the point.

[Singletrack1]

I'm sure they matter to someone. But it's a great example of how a sub par effort (not saying your whole effort is sub par but with 180whp it's certainly not all it could be) in a car that weighs 300lbs less than it should can still break track records. If that doesn't tell you that you didn't have an advantage then there's no convincing you.

s
[/b]

But you are assuming the person who set the previous record had a full out effort in a 100% driver.

It also assumes driver is not a large factor.

If I add 300# and still get the track record against a 100% effort by a RX-7 or 240Z, then you can say that the BMW had an advantage. That is not the case and I can assure you that the previous holder's car isn't a 100% or a 100% driver.

I don't see how using your logic can get to your conclusion that my car has an advantage.

You are accepting a conclusion without the supporting facts.

[JeffYoung]

Bill, it's been published here many times. It basically shoots for a 14:1 to power to weight ratio using the stock hp figure plus an adjustment for expected improvements in IT trim. Then, intangibles are used as adders/deducts from the weight (IRS v. live rear, discs v. drums, aero, etc.).

As Jake, George, Andy and others have presented it, it seems to make sense to me although it is probably not as "mathematical" as those on the short end (or perceived short end) of it would like.

One other point, and maybe I shouldn't make this one, but I think the ITAC majority (including your scapegoat) was firmly behind using weight as the fix, not the SIR. So, for me at least, a lot of the whining directed at the "scapegoat" is pretty damn offensive.

I promised myself I wouldn't post on this issue again, but here I am. Let me say this: I think SIRs suck, I think they have no place in IT, I think you guys (BMW guys) got screwed on the timing of this, I think that extraordinary efforts were made to test the SIR but things still didn't come out in a completely logical way and most of all I think that you guys were made to feel like a target by the whole process.

That said, any objective (as objective as the process can be) look at your cars (the E36) considering stock hp, known dyno plots for built motors, brakes, and suspension shows that 2850 at 205 whp is too light.

Can one of you guys justify the 2850 weight without reference to this years ARRC or the RX7 that pulled you by 4 car lengths over a 1/4 at Lefty Righty International Raceway at 3:32 p.m. on May 4, 2005? Stick to stock hp, IT gains, dyno plots and power to weight ratios.

Jeff

[stevel]

LOL. Do you or do you not make money on ITS RX7's?

[/b]

Nope he doesn't. And if FOM was his livelyhood he'd be in the poor house. (No offense AB, I just know the dayjob pays the bills and FOM is a venture far from self sustaining). Man, I can't believe the personal attacks on this issue! It seems the majority are people that aren't actually racers (thank god as most anyone that I have met at the track one on one has been great to know). Are you a regular over on bimmerforums too? The personal things they're saying over there is just absolute filth and I hope to god I never come face to face with some of them. But I digress.

AB is one of the most stand up guys I have ever met. Always on the straight and narrow, won't BS you and is always looking to have a level playing field. I don't know WHY you can't understand he is but ONE person in this whole thing. 1 out of many (i dunno, 10 or so ITAC) that RECOMMENDS to the CRB. How can he be such an influencing factor? Answer, he isn't. So stop all the petty 2 year old crap. He doesn't make money on RX7's. They don't sell them and they don't even build them! Stop making assumptions about something you have NO IDEA about.

It pains me to think that someday some of these people making these personal attacks are in the car next to me on the track. If I ever put IT.com name to face I can't wait to meet you! :bash_1_:

If you've got a problem with what's going on in regards to rules, tell the SCCA, CRB, etc. Don't bitch on here. DO something about it!

s

[Andy Bettencourt]

but Andy... The bottom line is...I though we were limiting output to 180 rwhp...??? Are you contending that he will, by re-tune, (not supposed to be necessary with the magical SIR) get 180 rwhp???

Originally...post after post stated that the not-full-effort cars...ie those with 180 rwhp "would not be affected"...what we are seeing here is that one of these aforementioned cars IS being affected to the tune of 20 rwhp by the invisible SIR.

[/b]

I am not contending anything. I have said this now, what, 3 times...the SIR did NOT work as billed from Raetech on that front. This error - and it's effect on under-prepped cars WAS a factor in the decision making process of the CRB.

Proponents of the SIR will be quick to point out that going to 3200lbs on a 180whp effort (when 205-210 is out there) would have an equally devistating effect. To which those who have spent the money to get to 'full-prep' would tell you to bend someone elses ear as that is what it takes to run up front.

AB

[dj10]

That is in direct contradiction to what David Finch told me when I told him about my dyno results. He stated it has to be in FRONT of the HFM to make the full 180HP. When I told him about my car and the other car not running past 3k with it behind the HFM, he stated we need to do more development.

This is in direct contradiction to what the ITAC and CRB told us the effect of the SIR would be. I can quote your post and others that state that the SIR only caps HP and it should not have affected my 180HP baseline.

Yes, my car was lean and it has since been corrected.
Bill Kim
[/b]

Bill, I will not dispute Dave. He know's way more than I'll ever know. Maybe Jake can help us out here, he was at some of the tests? The way it was explained to me, that the AFM needed uninterupted air to be effective, that is why the SIR was placed after the AFM and between the TB. I would imagine the C & G Performance will be talking to Dave Finch when they order my SIR. I would like to hear from anyone with actual knowledge of these SIR's and their placement. I had also heard some time ago that unfortunately like the FPR it would effect all level of preped cars, but so would have the weight too.
Bill did you Dyno your car after you richened it up? If so what were the results?

[Singletrack1]

What formula do you want published - the 'process' for weight has been hashed over a hundred times, the SIR stuff is for engineers - the END RESULT IS the point.
[/b]

If you can publish the "process" in simple terms such as "weight * X /Y + Z = HP", that would be helpful. And some explaination of where X, Y, Z came from.

I think a simple summary would be helpful as it helps to see where new cars may go in terms of weight.

Thanks,

Bill

[Fastfred92]

And just because AB thinks I am a smart ass I want to thank Steve E. for once again validating why we should not use race or track results....... Steve's underdog RX7 hung a lap this weekend within a couple tenths of the track record at VIR. For those who dont know, VIR is a very HP oriented track and the record is held by that villainous Chet guy in a UNRESTRICTED e36. Not sure if you classify Steve's car as a 100% build either.... but several RX7's were hovering in the 2:14's and even a Z found itself down in that range. But I am sure the BMW was sandbagging a few years ago. It's the process, I know.........

[Singletrack1]

Bill, I will not dispute Dave. He know's way more than I'll ever know. Maybe Jake can help us out here, he was at some of the tests? The way it was explained to me, that the AFM needed uninterupted air to be effective, that is why the SIR was placed after the AFM and between the TB. I would imagine the C & G Performance will be talking to Dave Finch when they order my SIR. I would like to hear from anyone with actual knowledge of these SIR's and their placement. I had also heard some time ago that unfortunately like the FPR it would effect all level of preped cars, but so would have the weight too.
Bill did you Dyno your car after you richened it up? If so what were the results?
[/b]


I edited my original post to make it more clear.

1. My car and the other did not run at all past 3K RPM with the SIR in front of the HFM
2. The dyno runs on my car was done with the SIR after the HFM and in front of the throttle body.
3. When I pointed out this to David Finch, he stated the SIR need to be in FRONT of the HFM and that was the last dyno they did at 180HP with the 29mm SIR. When I pointed out my low dyno results, he attributed it to the placement of the SIR after the HFM, not that I needed to start with a motor with more HP.
4. He also claimed the ITAC/CRB did not listen to him and that he did not recommend the 27mm size.

I will have the dyno results with the richer fuel map soon. I am waiting to finish some other parts to test at the same time and that is why I haven't retested it yet.

My 27mm Raetech SIR is for sale in the classified section - Raetech said they will replace it with a 29mm for free.


Bill

[Andy Bettencourt]

If you can publish the "process" in simple terms such as "weight * X /Y + Z = HP", that would be helpful. And some explaination of where X, Y, Z came from.

I think a simple summary would be helpful as it helps to see where new cars may go in terms of weight.

Thanks,

Bill [/b]

Bill,

You will find it in detail in the rediculous thread on Bimmerforums. Post 101.

You miss that? You are one of the guys that took the most swings at me personally on that site. Thanks for paying attention.


And just because AB thinks I am a smart ass I want to thank Steve E. for once again validating why we should not use race or track results....... Steve's underdog RX7 hung a lap this weekend within a couple tenths of the track record at VIR. For those who dont know, VIR is a very HP oriented track and the record is held by that villainous Chet guy in a UNRESTRICTED e36. Not sure if you classify Steve's car as a 100% build either.... but several RX7's were hovering in the 2:14's and even a Z found itself down in that range. But I am sure the BMW was sandbagging a few years ago. It's the process, I know......... [/b]


Care to mention that Chet's car did that in the heat of the summer when all the other cars were running 4 seconds slower? Think the air-temp had anything to do with power this weekend? I can spin the data as fast as you can.



Why can't you accept that it IS about the numbers?

[dj10]

I edited my original post to make it more clear.

1. My car and the other did not run at all past 3K RPM with the SIR in front of the HFM
2. The dyno runs on my car was done with the SIR after the HFM and in front of the throttle body.
3. When I pointed out this to David Finch, he stated the SIR need to be in FRONT of the HFM and that was the last dyno they did at 180HP with the 29mm SIR. When I pointed out my low dyno results, he attributed it to the placement of the SIR after the HFM, not that I needed to start with a motor with more HP.
4. He also claimed the ITAC/CRB did not listen to him and that he did not recommend the 27mm size.

I will have the dyno results with the richer fuel map soon. I am waiting to finish some other parts to test at the same time and that is why I haven't retested it yet.

My 27mm Raetech SIR is for sale in the classified section - Raetech said they will replace it with a 29mm for free.

Bill [/b]

I guess he didn't tell you exactely where to put it, like how close to the AFM or HFM or how close to the air filter it needs to be?
Thanks

[Bill Miller]

Hey, its your decision to post here instead of posting a profit.

Maybe you should see if "flatout-motorsports.ORG" is taken.

RX3SP
[/b]


You sir, are a cowardly tool!



That is in direct contradiction to what David Finch told me when I told him about my dyno results. He stated it has to be in FRONT of the HFM to make the full 180HP. When I told him about my car and the other car not running past 3k with it in front of the HFM, he stated we need to do more development.[/b]

That, more than anything else I've read about SIR's, just screams of BS.


"DoubleD", I'm w/ Steve on this one, IT really doesn't need people like you.

[seckerich]

And just because AB thinks I am a smart ass I want to thank Steve E. for once again validating why we should not use race or track results....... Steve's underdog RX7 hung a lap this weekend within a couple tenths of the track record at VIR. For those who dont know, VIR is a very HP oriented track and the record is held by that villainous Chet guy in a UNRESTRICTED e36. Not sure if you classify Steve's car as a 100% build either.... but several RX7's were hovering in the 2:14's and even a Z found itself down in that range. But I am sure the BMW was sandbagging a few years ago. It's the process, I know.........
[/b]
Chet went 2:12 as did York--Get it right before you post bad info. I have the sheet from 2004 qual. at MARRS/SARRC to prove it. We now have 2 generation better Hoosiers as well. And yes I am 99.98 % prep. You have to back it up in the race to get the track record which is much harder with someone inside you every corner. I was .4 off my Qual. time with Kent Thompson under me every lap. Oh yea--He is 99.99% if you need to ask.

[Singletrack1]

Bill,

You will find it in detail in the rediculous thread on Bimmerforums. Post 101.

You miss that? You are one of the guys that took the most swings at me personally on that site. Thanks for paying attention.


[/b]

I'm not sure why you are bringing that back up. I think I have been civil and polite here. :D

I have made a simple request and you have now it turns ugly.

I believe there were pleny of mud thrown on both sides, but again, why bring it up now, rather than answering my question?

Who has now made it personal?

Show me where on this current thread have I said anything personal about anyone.

It seems you resort to personal attacks when unable to answer tough questions.

I just want to see the numbers. I want to see all the numbers so I can see for myself whether it makes sense or not. If it makes perfect sense as the ITAC says, why not publish the "formula" in the GCR?

Why can't we see weight + X * Y = HP? And, what X & Y mean so we can take another hypothetical car and get the weight for it? And, to verify the weight for all the cars in IT?

Any person that blindly believes the end numbers without seeing how it got there is a person who goes through life as a sucker. Do you just sign at the dotted line when buying a car? Or a house? You want to see all the numbers yourself for errors or other issues.

You are demanding that we accept the end number without any explaination. I find that rather humerous as I don't think you got to the position in your life by accepting other's conclusions blindly. If so, I got some hot stock for you. :D

I want to see for myself how the ITAC got from 2850 to 3150. Again, if the process is so "fair", why the personal attack, rather than a simple answer? Can you humor us and just give the absolute formula and numbers once more? I promise I will go away after I get an answer to this question.

If the "formula" has fudge factors, that is fine, but it should be defined, rather than ad hoc per car. If there is ad hoc assignment of fudge factors per car, that isn't a formula. That is ad hoc assignment of weight.

If that is the case, other people running in IT should be very concerned as the formula is nothing more than a sham for for ad hoc weight assignment with no basis.

Bill

[Geo]

AB, for a fact this BMW you know had a baseline of 180 rwhp without the SIR correct? If this is the case, #1. I don't believe this is a Stickley motor, I know for a fact that his baseline engines are much higher than 180 rwhp with FPR restrictors and without SIR's.
[/b]

Sorry if this has already been addressed. I'm trying to do 3 things at once at work and this is one I shouldn't be doing at the moment. :)

This engine has one day break-in. I suspect it's still a bit tight. Also, the AF ratios don't look great. However, sometimes the dyno widebands aren't the most accurate (as opposed to a Horriba), so the ratios may or may not be accurate. Mostly I suspect it's still a bit tight.

[Harry Balszac]

Bill,

You will find it in detail in the rediculous thread on Bimmerforums. Post 101.

You miss that? You are one of the guys that took the most swings at me personally on that site. Thanks for paying attention.


[/b]


Andy, all due respect...but IIRC, Bill never has take a swing at ANYONE, either here on anywhere else.

Also, I know for a fact that his motor is a Stickley motor. I was in his shop when it arrived.



You sir, are a cowardly tool!
That, more than anything else I've read about SIR's, just screams of BS.
"DoubleD", I'm w/ Steve on this one, IT really doesn't need people like you.
[/b]

Wow.

Name calling.

Denying the truth.

And exclusionary elitism.

You sure are showing IT's best side, aren't you, Bill?

:happy204: :happy204: :happy204:

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm not sure why you are bringing that back up. I think I have been civil and polite here. :D

I have made a simple request and you have now it turns ugly.

I believe there were pleny of mud thrown on both sides, but again, why bring it up now, rather than answering my question?

Who has now made it personal?

Show me where on this current thread have I said anything personal about anyone.

It seems you resort to personal attacks when unable to answer tough questions.

I just want to see the numbers. I want to see all the numbers so I can see for myself whether it makes sense or not. If it makes perfect sense as the ITAC says, why not publish the "formula" in the GCR?

Why can't we see weight + X * Y = HP? And, what X & Y mean so we can take another hypothetical car and get the weight for it? And, to verify the weight for all the cars in IT?

Any person that blindly believes the end numbers without seeing how it got there is a person who goes through life as a sucker. Do you just sign at the dotted line when buying a car? Or a house? You want to see all the numbers yourself for errors or other issues.

You are demanding that we accept the end number without any explaination. I find that rather humerous as I don't think you got to the position in your life by accepting other's conclusions blindly. If so, I got some hot stock for you. :D

I want to see for myself how the ITAC got from 2850 to 3150. Again, if the process is so "fair", why the personal attack, rather than a simple answer? Can you humor us and just give the absolute formula and numbers once more? I promise I will go away after I get an answer to this question.

If the "formula" has fudge factors, that is fine, but it should be defined, rather than ad hoc per car. If there is ad hoc assignment of fudge factors per car, that isn't a formula. That is ad hoc assignment of weight.

If that is the case, other people running in IT should be very concerned as the formula is nothing more than a sham for for ad hoc weight assignment with no basis.

Bill [/b]

Bill,

Just because you have been good here doesn't mean I am going to turn my back on you based on your history.

The 'process' was defined to the number - for the BMW in that post #101. Your 'tough' question has been answered. Not sure why you can't see that. When you read it again, let me know where it is vague and I will clear it up for you.

AB

[stevel]

...

[Singletrack1]

I guess he didn't tell you exactely where to put it, like how close to the AFM or HFM or how close to the air filter it needs to be?
Thanks
[/b]

No - his response was that as racers, we have to do all our own development. We have exactly 5 weeks to do the development and we have to do it on a part that he did not do the proper development or testing on for this application and is not willing to share the data on how to make it work.

One thing I would ask of the BMW racers that are going to purchase the SIR is to not buy from Raetech. There are other sources for SIR's and why support the person who helped to create a large part of this mess and isn't supporting his product?

Bill

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, all due respect...but IIRC, Bill never has take a swing at ANYONE, either here on anywhere else.

Also, I know for a fact that his motor is a Stickley motor. I was in his shop when it arrived.

[/b]

Hey Harry, tell me what you think of this pile of BS:


I agree with you 100%. If/when the E46's start beating Andy Bettencourt, it will get a restrictor too.

I agree this is a bad precident as there was no problem to fix, other than RX-7's not dominating any more. And, now all Andy has to do is to put a restrictor on any car that beats him. The ultimate "I" class.

I'm not sure if there was ever a good sactioning body to race with, but SCCA is proving again that it is run purely by politics. Why does NASA exist?

Bill[/b]

If that isn't an uppercut, I don't know what is. It may be a past viewpoint and if it is, I accept it as water under the bridge.

Let's get past it. Let's all try and look at the data objectively.

AB

[Harry Balszac]

Hey Harry, tell me what you think of this pile of BS:
It may be a past viewpoint and if it is, I accept it as water under the bridge, but not until then.

AB
[/b]


Andy, given the fact that you have a vested interest in RX-7's success, why would you expect BMW racers being penalized by what turned out ot be an EXTREMELY ill-conceived & secretive ruling to feel any other way?

I mean, come on! Use your head! If someone raising a legitimate appearance of favoritism is, in your world, a personal attack, well I don't know what to say.

Far from being BS, it is in fact a widespread point of view.

[stevel]

I'm not sure why you are bringing that back up. I think I have been civil and polite here. :D
[/b]

You want a medal? You made personal attacks on another board and them come over here and expect it to be forgotten? All he is asking you to do is go check post 101. That so hard?



I have made a simple request and you have now it turns ugly.

I believe there were pleny of mud thrown on both sides, but again, why bring it up now, rather than answering my question?

[/b]

What did he do to turn it ugly? And I read most of that thread over on bimmerforums. Mud thrown on both sides? I think that is skewing the truth just a little. You guys made personal attacks about him, how he makes money, and other personal stuff. It was a tad bit brutal and quite uncalled for. So, don't expect much over here if you were a part of that.





Who has now made it personal?

Show me where on this current thread have I said anything personal about anyone.


[/b]

How did he make it personal? Did he personally attack you here? I don't see where in that thread it says anything. Like I said, just because you haven't done anything here doesn't mean you start with a clean slate. You sling mud at someone on another board and then expect, what? A do-over? I don't think so.

s

[buldogge]

Andy... Sorry you had to answer that 4 times or whatever...but...I hadn't read the whole thread here...I responded after reading the thread on BF.

Bottom line is...this is just plain wrong. Why couldn't the SIR that Joe H. and Mr. Finch are so fond, of be implemented at the necessary size to ensure that 180 rwhp was the "untouched" magical number?

35mm only cost 4-5hp...so...

What did 30...31...32...33..34mm do???

Sounds like 31mm might have been more appropriate.

First the ITAC/CRB thought that NO TESTING was needed...the pure science of the SIR would shine thru...remember.

Then testing was needed because troubling dynos popped up...so they tested.

Now...it is shown that the SIR IS NOT invisible to moderate-prep motors.

Is there not a size that works as advertised...period???





I am not contending anything. I have said this now, what, 3 times...the SIR did NOT work as billed from Raetech on that front. This error - and it's effect on under-prepped cars WAS a factor in the decision making process of the CRB.

Proponents of the SIR will be quick to point out that going to 3200lbs on a 180whp effort (when 205-210 is out there) would have an equally devistating effect. To which those who have spent the money to get to 'full-prep' would tell you to bend someone elses ear as that is what it takes to run up front.

AB
[/b]

[stevel]

Andy, given the fact that you have a vested interest in RX-7's success
[/b]

How is it a fact?

s

[Harry Balszac]

Andy... Sorry you had to answer that 4 times or whatever...but...I hadn't read the whole thread here...I responded after reading the thread on BF.

Bottom line is...this is just plain wrong. Why couldn't the SIR that Joe H. and Mr. Finch are so fond, of be implemented at the necessary size to ensure that 180 rwhp was the "untouched" magical number?

35mm only cost 4-5hp...so...

What did 30...31...32...33..34mm do???

Sounds like 31mm might have been more appropriate.

First the ITAC/CRB thought that NO TESTING was needed...the pure science of the SIR would shine thru...remember.

Then testing was needed because troubling dynos popped up...so they tested.

Now...it is shown that the SIR IS NOT invisible to moderate-prep motors.

Is there not a size that works as advertised...period???
[/b]

Yeah, and some of the ITAC folks & their defenders wonder why many of the rest of us think this is arbitrary, capricious, ill-conceived, fact-free, and stinky?




How is it a fact?

s
[/b]

Steve, please use your head. How is it not?

If I built E36 ITS cars, as a side business or as my primary business, and then played a direct role in rules which made RX-7's less competitive (and by doing so, the E36 became more competitive), don't you think I'd be viewed the same way?

Sheesh...COME ON!

[Singletrack1]

...
[/b]

How about a personal attack then so you know the difference?

I guess you also subscribe to Bill Clinton's defense of "what is sexual relations"? LOL :D

:dead_horse: :bash_1_: :bash_1_:

I'm off to work and make money to pay for a nice getto carbon fiber wing for BMWCCA. :D

This has been entertaining and everyone have fun beating up on BMW's after May 1st. :happy204:

Bye,

Bill

[stevel]

If I built E36 ITS cars, as a side business or as my primary business, and then played a direct role in rules which made RX-7's less competitive (and by doing so, the E36 became more competitive), don't you think I'd be viewed the same way?

Sheesh...COME ON!
[/b]

That's what you're missing. They don't build RX7's as a side business or primary business. I know him and the guys personally. Know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.

s




How about a personal attack then so you know the difference?

I guess you also subscribe to Bill Clinton's defense of "what is sexual relations"? LOL :D

:dead_horse: :bash_1_: :bash_1_:


[/b]

I have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

s

[Harry Balszac]

That's what you're missing. They don't build RX7's as a side business or primary business. I know him and the guys personally. Know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.


s
[/b]


Um...Steve? News flash: on the BF thread to which Andy referred several posts ago, he specifially ADMITTED that he built, prepared, and sold RX-7's.

Oh, and please drop the bitter vindictive act. I do not believe my posts have merited your last sentence directed at me.

[stevel]

Um...Steve? News flash: on the BF thread to which Andy referred several posts ago, he specifially ADMITTED that he built, prepared, and sold RX-7's.
[/b]

Yeah, they have. But it's not there business. They have sold, built, and prepared RX7's, not necessarily as a business venture. If the 3 cars they have sold and the other handful they may have worked on count as primary business that causes a vested interest that you're talking about then you're splitting hairs. I'll let Andy explain more, but if you did actually know the whole picture you would realize what you said sounded stupid.



Oh, and please drop the bitter vindictive act. I do not believe my posts have merited your last sentence directed at me.[/b]
I'll stick by what I said. If you wanna be sarcastic and make accusations about people then know what you're talking about first. And if you don't be prepared to be called on it.

s

[Harry Balszac]

Yeah, they have. But it's not there business. They have sold, built, and prepared RX7's, not necessarily as a business venture. If the 3 cars they have sold and the other handful they may have worked on count as primary business that causes a vested interest that you're talking about then you're splitting hairs. I'll let Andy explain more, but if you did actually know the whole picture you would realize what you said sounded stupid.
I'll stick by what I said. If you wanna be sarcastic and make accusations about people then know what you're talking about first. And if you don't be prepared to be called on it.

s
[/b]


Wow, you sure sound all butch & tough. LOL.

Come on, man, grow up.

I said that many think that there is an appearance of favoritism related to his side business. This is 100% true. I made NO accusations.

Perhaps you should do a little introspection as to why you are so over-reacting and offensively brittle?

[Geo]

If the "formula" has fudge factors, that is fine, but it should be defined, rather than ad hoc per car. If there is ad hoc assignment of fudge factors per car, that isn't a formula. That is ad hoc assignment of weight.

If that is the case, other people running in IT should be very concerned as the formula is nothing more than a sham for for ad hoc weight assignment with no basis.
[/b]

Bill, you are correct in that there are subjective components to the adders and subtractors. It is NOT a formula and no one on the ITAC has ever said it was. I do believe I explaned this when we met.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is turning into a Bimmerforums-type pissing match where we want to use the numbers and some want to continually bitch and moan about perceived impropriety. Like I said on the other board, I know what it looks like, but it ISN'T that way. If you can't come to grips with that and look at the data, then so be it.

The fact remains that the technology does not work 100% as advertised by Finch, no matter the size. There is no size that gets everyone to the magic number.

Just like in all the other classes, the underprepared will be slower. Funny, how would the big $$$ guys feel if their efforts were marginalized to 180whp and then a low $$$ guys comes in at 180whp and is 'invisible'?

Like I said, this characteristic was considered when the decision was made by the CRB.

[mlytle]

I'm off to work and make money to pay for a nice getto carbon fiber wing for BMWCCA. :D

This has been entertaining and everyone have fun beating up on BMW's after May 1st. :happy204:

Bye,

Bill
[/b]

looks like the marrs race at the end of april will be the last one for my car with "its" on the side.

buh bye scca its. see ya over in bmwcca cr bill!

off to go shopping for cams and wings....

marshall

[Harry Balszac]

This is turning into a Bimmerforums-type pissing match where we want to use the numbers and some want to continually bitch and moan about perceived impropriety. Like I said on the other board, I know what it looks like, but it ISN'T that way. If you can't come to grips with that and look at the data, then so be it.

The fact remains that the technology does not work 100% as advertised by Finch, no matter the size. There is no size that gets everyone to the magic number.



Just like in all the other classes, the underprepared will be slower. Funny, how would the big $$$ guys feel if their efforts were marginalized to 180whp and then a low $$$ guys comes in at 180whp and is 'invisible'?



Like I said, this characteristic was considered when the decision was made by the CRB.
[/b]


Maybe, for the future, ITAC and CRB should consider the old adage, "Measure twice & cut once", Andy. This has the appearance of a farce, wheter that is true or not.

[dj10]

Sorry if this has already been addressed. I'm trying to do 3 things at once at work and this is one I shouldn't be doing at the moment. :)

This engine has one day break-in. I suspect it's still a bit tight. Also, the AF ratios don't look great. However, sometimes the dyno widebands aren't the most accurate (as opposed to a Horriba), so the ratios may or may not be accurate. Mostly I suspect it's still a bit tight.
[/b]

Well I know Chuck, and his engines are clearanced to make HP immediately.

All these personal attacks and accusations have to stop, guys this isn't JR HIGH SCHOOL! I'm disappointed that the results haven't been posted as promised, I'm alittle bummed that the CRB hasn't made it manditory for the placement of the SIR so now it's a gussing game. The CRB has made a decision. Try it if you don't like the results, we have other options.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Harry Balszac[/b]

Say the name outloud. As amusing as his facts.

Just another guy hiding behind a fake name who joined today.

:015:

[stevel]

Wow, you sure sound all butch & tough. LOL.

Come on, man, grow up.

I said that many think that there is an appearance of favoritism related to his side business. This is 100% true. I made NO accusations.

Perhaps you should do a little introspection as to why you are so over-reacting and offensively brittle?
[/b]

A guy with a name of Harry Balszac telling me to grow up. Irony at it's best. Come on out from hiding and tell us your real name and give some sort of credibility to yourself.

Once again you're saying things without knowing anything about what you're talking about. Not trying to sound all "butch and tough" (whatever that means) but I just said if you say something know the facts first. That's basically all I said. I didn't say it in the nicest way, but tit for tat I don't think it was out of line.

Over-reacting? I'm just looking out for a friend. I don't call that over-reacting at all. And I certainly haven't taken any personal shots at anyone else while doing so. If I was over-reacting it would be obvious. And you're far from offending me. 2 minutes from now I'll forget all about this and go on with my life. I just wanted to stick up for a person that has taken way too much heat for something that involved so many other people's input and decisions. He was but a small part of the this entire decision. Again, something you and others seemed to have missed.

s

[buldogge]

I don't really know how they would feel...but...regardless...that's not how the SIR was "sold" to the members here.

Bummer...Seems to me that the ITAC/CRB's work is not truly "done".

Funny how everyone here is against MOTEC when the subject comes up...but...they fully support a system by which MOTEC becomes required to run (a restricted no less) rwhp for the BMW!



Just like in all the other classes, the underprepared will be slower. Funny, how would the big $$$ guys feel if their efforts were marginalized to 180whp and then a low $$$ guys comes in at 180whp and is 'invisible'?
[/b]

[stevel]

...

[e36its]

If you can't come to grips with that and look at the data, then so be it.[/b]Can we separate out the issues? Outside of any appearance-of-impropriety issues, I really want to look at the data (or rather, have people smarter than me look at the data). So far we've got one data point submitted by the car owner -- a data point which (some say) might have issues that render it not illustrative. Please, for the love of all that is holy, somebody get us some data!

The fact remains that the technology does not work 100% as advertised by Finch, no matter the size. There is no size that gets everyone to the magic number.[/b]So the technology isn't all that we thought it would be. I thought (based on posts here) that it would be
1) invisible until its choke point
2) cut off power at an absolute point
3) not require tuning.

It appears that #1 is not true, and that #3 may not be true (the dyno chart posted was leaner than the no-SIR chart). #2 seems to be untrue as well, as it responds differently on different motors. Given that, does the SIR really buy us anything for the complication and controversy? Or is a really expensive FPR with installation issues?

tom

[Harry Balszac]

Say the name outloud. As amusing as his facts.

Just another guy hiding behind a fake name who joined today.

:015:
[/b]


Wow. Is that the best you have?

Sheesh, and I thought we could avoid personal attacks in this thread.

The fact that I use an amusing screen name, and that I joined today, is 100% irrelevant....but I guess it give you cover to avoid the points I raised, eh?

FYI, my name is David Scott. But I am not sure what difference that makes to the points I, and others, have raised.



A guy with a name of Harry Balszac telling me to grow up. Irony at it's best. Come on out from hiding and tell us your real name and give some sort of credibility to yourself.

Once again you're saying things without knowing anything about what you're talking about. Not trying to sound all "butch and tough" (whatever that means) but I just said if you say something know the facts first. That's basically all I said. I didn't say it in the nicest way, but tit for tat I don't think it was out of line.

Over-reacting? I'm just looking out for a friend. I don't call that over-reacting at all. And I certainly haven't taken any personal shots at anyone else while doing so. If I was over-reacting it would be obvious. And you're far from offending me. 2 minutes from now I'll forget all about this and go on with my life. I just wanted to stick up for a person that has taken way too much heat for something that involved so many other people's input and decisions. He was but a small part of the this entire decision. Again, something you and others seemed to have missed.

s
[/b]


As I just posted, my name is David Scott. Now that we have that behind us, please share with the group how on Earth my real name is (1) relevant or (2) imbues me with any more or less credibility?

As for the rest of your points, fine. I can appreciate sticking up for a friend. However, you should have advised your friend to remove himself from this entire matter in the beginning due to the appearance of conflict of interest, dont you think?

[Harry Balszac]

...and dead silence.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can we separate out the issues? Outside of any appearance-of-impropriety issues, I really want to look at the data (or rather, have people smarter than me look at the data). So far we've got one data point submitted by the car owner -- a data point which (some say) might have issues that render it not illustrative. Please, for the love of all that is holy, somebody get us some data!
So the technology isn't all that we thought it would be. I thought (based on posts here) that it would be
1) invisible until its choke point
2) cut off power at an absolute point
3) not require tuning.

It appears that #1 is not true, and that #3 may not be true (the dyno chart posted was leaner than the no-SIR chart). #2 seems to be untrue as well, as it responds differently on different motors. Given that, does the SIR really buy us anything for the complication and controversy? Or is a really expensive FPR with installation issues?

tom [/b]

Tom,

All good points. I said it before, leaking one data point serves no good. It is just a small piece of the pie and can't be taken in context.

Your 1 through 3 are pretty accurate (not sure 100% on #3 but...) as far as what was sold to us as we went down this road.

Your hypothosis at the end of your post are the exact items that the CRB thought about. I guess they decided the net/net was better for BMW guys and the class. If I was a BMW owner, I would be upset at the timing and upset that this was the 2nd change in 2 years. All I can tell you is that the goal is to reverse engineer the 'process' so that the BMW gets to stay at it's current weight while still fitting in the performance envelope of ITS instead of running forward to get to 3150-3200lbs.

Send your concerns to the CRB. May be too late if you are against SIR's but at least you will be on record.

AB





Wow. Is that the best you have?

Sheesh, and I thought we could avoid personal attacks in this thread.

The fact that I use an amusing screen name, and that I joined today, is 100% irrelevant....but I guess it give you cover to avoid the points I raised, eh?

FYI, my name is David Scott. But I am not sure what difference that makes to the points I, and others, have raised.

As I just posted, my name is David Scott. Now that we have that behind us, please share with the group how on Earth my real name is (1) relevant or (2) imbues me with any more or less credibility?

As for the rest of your points, fine. I can appreciate sticking up for a friend. However, you should have advised your friend to remove himself from this entire matter in the beginning due to the appearance of conflict of interest, dont you think? [/b]

The best I have? What I see is a guy who was hiding behind a stupid name. Welcome to IT.com.

You have raised no valid points I can see. You are a direct transplant from the other board and you can't get by one issue that has been refuted numerous times. For our benefit, please list your issues so we can address them one at a time to satisfy you and all that are still missing the points we are obviously not conveying well. I will be happy to give you the facts as I know them.

As far as the silence? Some people have to have dinner. :rolleyes:

Bring on the actual questions about the topic, not about your false perceptions. If you can't, do us all a favor and head on back to Bimmerforums.

AB

[Harry Balszac]

The best I have? What I see is a guy who was hiding behind a stupid name. Welcome to IT.com.

You have raised no valid points I can see. You are a direct transplant from the other board and you can't get by one issue that has been refuted numerous times.

Bring on the actual questions about the topic, not about your false perceptions. If you can't, do us all a favor and head on back to Bimmerforums.

AB
[/b]


Are you absolutely sure about that, Andy?

Oh, and I have. And all I have gotten is crap about my user name, how long I have been posting here, etc.

You sure you are not trying to avoid the real issues here? Namely (in no order whatsoever):

-your conflict(s) of interest
-ITAC's (and your) promises early on that SIR was good to go in 27mm configuration
-now you are backpedaling & blaming the vendor? GIMME A FRIKKING BREAK
-total lack of testing of 27mm SIR
-total lack of transparency of testing 27, 29, and all other SIR sizes that may or may not have been tested
-total lack of transparency about the formulas (citing an arbitrary post # of a long-forgotten BF thread does not cut it)
-multiple promises that 27 (and now 29) SIR would only have an effect at higher than 180-190rwhp
-now you are backpedaling & blaming the vendor...WHERE WAS YOUR DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE THE RULING?
-posting of any & all minutes of ITAC meetings that discussed the E36 issue(s) in which you participated
-shall I go on?

Now....hit me again about my silly user name & how many posts I have. LOL.

[lateapex911]

Back when I was a junior high school teacher, I had a kid announce in front of the class that I was discriminating against him because he was black. I gave him a pass to see the principal, so he could file the official greivance with the district, warranted by that kind of treatment. He didn't do it, came back to class, and worked harder.

The moral as it applies here?

If you honestly believe that any ITAC or Board member is letting a vested interest influence his/her/their club business decisions, you have an obligation to either (a) make an official complaint to SCCA, or (B) shut the hell up.

K
[/b]

Thankyou Kirk. I'd like to add that you should sign your complaint/charge, and be very specific in the charge with as much backing documentation as possible.

I do wish that the internet didn't bring out a side of people that (I hope) I wouldn't see in person. If I am ever approached by anyone in the immature way that I have see some demonstrate here, I hope that I will just turn on my heels and walk away. Therefore, I won't respond to any of the less than reasonble comments and claims here.

In terms of the placement of the SIR that I observed at the tests I was present for, I can say this:
When the SIR was placed directly in front of the HFM (?) AFM (?) the car ran poorly and was clearly affected by the pressure variations the SIR presented, even low in the rev range. So we moved the meter to a location, as I explained many posts up, upstream of the SIR.

The wire reached easily, we didn't see the same issues, and the A/F ratio was right in the range it should be, and matched the baseline runs.

Now, is it possible to mount the SIR further upsteam of the meter and acheive good results? I don't know. I understand that Dave Finch (from what has been repeated here) states that that is the way he tested, but I am unaware of any tests he conducted.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Finally, some stuff to actually debate




-your conflict(s) of interest[/b]
Been adressed. You think it's there, it isn't. People who know me and the work I put in know it's a bogus smoke screen to have to avoid the real issues. The ITAC nor the CRB would have anyone serving on their committies that had such demonstrated conflicts. I am as impartial as they come. Sorry to let you down.


-ITAC's (and your) promises early on that SIR was good to go in 27mm configuration
-now you are backpedaling & blaming the vendor? GIMME A FRIKKING BREAK[/b]

We gave you the information as it was given to us. Blame the vendor? Where do you think we got the info? Duh! People flew off the handle with bogus info without doing the research. If they had done the research, they would have come to the same conclusion that was given to us. We were keeping the line of communication open. Was the info flawed? Yes, in some ways that have been detailed.


-total lack of testing of 27mm SIR[/b]

You are right on here. Testing should have happened PRIOR to the CRB laying down the rule. Read this part VERY carefully - the ITAC had NO PART in the decision, the sizing or the implementation dates for the SIR.


-total lack of transparency of testing 27, 29, and all other SIR sizes that may or may not have been tested[/b]
I have seen data on 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34mm SIR's. I hope that the CRB will release findings in their summary statement.


-total lack of transparency about the formulas (citing an arbitrary post # of a long-forgotten BF thread does not cut it)[/b]

You are 100% wrong on this. That post was as detailed as it gets. If you still have questions after really reading it, please post them. This process has been posted here manay times and has the support of the vast majority.


-multiple promises that 27 (and now 29) SIR would only have an effect at higher than 180-190rwhp[/b]

See above (and in multiple explanations in this thread) about what was 'wrong' when the rubber hit the rollers.


-now you are backpedaling & blaming the vendor...WHERE WAS YOUR DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE THE RULING?[/b]

Nobody is backpedaling. We got a recommendation from Raetech on a size and the reasoning behind it. The CRB decided to go 2mm larger based on testing. As far as due dillegence and the ruling, that is a question for the CRB as explained above.


-posting of any & all minutes of ITAC meetings that discussed the E36 issue(s) in which you participated[/b]

See my first response. Let's talk real issues instead of your wrong assumptions about bias that have been shot down. It may appear like there could be an issue but the structure doesn't allow it. Move on.


-shall I go on?[/b]

Please do. This is all being done on the up and up. There is nothig to hide. For specifics on the actual decision and timing etc, send a letter to the CRB, they did it all.


Now....hit me again about my silly user name & how many posts I have. LOL.
[/b]

No need. You are doing a great job yourself.

[mlytle]

Can we separate out the issues? Outside of any appearance-of-impropriety issues, I really want to look at the data (or rather, have people smarter than me look at the data). So far we've got one data point submitted by the car owner -- a data point which (some say) might have issues that render it not illustrative. Please, for the love of all that is holy, somebody get us some data!
So the technology isn't all that we thought it would be. I thought (based on posts here) that it would be
1) invisible until its choke point
2) cut off power at an absolute point
3) not require tuning.

It appears that #1 is not true, and that #3 may not be true (the dyno chart posted was leaner than the no-SIR chart). #2 seems to be untrue as well, as it responds differently on different motors. Given that, does the SIR really buy us anything for the complication and controversy? Or is a really expensive FPR with installation issues?

tom
[/b]

you have summed it up nicely tom. none of the touted benefits have materialized. we (well, not me) now effectively have an expensive fpr to deal with.

[Bill Miller]

Wow.

Name calling.

Denying the truth.

And exclusionary elitism.

You sure are showing IT's best side, aren't you, Bill?
[/b]

Hey Ball Sack, exactly what truth have I denied?


The whole SIR thing stinks to high heaven. There's something going on w/ these things that nobody's telling. I love how people like to jump down Andy's throat because he works on RX7s, but I haven't seen many (any?) people talking about the blatant conflict of interest w/ David Finch promoting a technology and product that his company sells. I've heard about all the money and time he's 'donated' [sic] w.r.t the use of SIRs. The man is in business, and owns a company that has developed and marketed SIRs. He hasn't 'donated' anything. What he's done is spend money to develop a market for a product his company sells.

I also love the people that whine because the SIR effects everybody's motors, and doens't just chop power off the top. Boo frickin' hoo, you can't have a winning car w/ a j/y motor. Welcome to the rest of IT's world.

[buldogge]

Andy...Can we at least hear a summary of the results...ie xxmm equaled xxxrwhp...???

Is this too much to ask?

If you have this info...I see no "danger" in releasing it...other than the truth (a different truth perhaps?)!

TIA




I have seen data on 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34mm SIR's. I hope that the CRB will release findings in their summary statement.
[/b]

[Harry Balszac]

Finally, some stuff to actually debate
Been adressed. You think it's there, it isn't. People who know me and the work I put in know it's a bogus smoke screen to have to avoid the real issues. The ITAC nor the CRB would have anyone serving on their committies that had such demonstrated conflicts. I am as impartial as they come. Sorry to let you down.
We gave you the information as it was given to us. Blame the vendor? Where do you think we got the info? Duh! People flew off the handle with bogus info without doing the research. If they had done the research, they would have come to the same conclusion that was given to us. We were keeping the line of communication open. Was the info flawed? Yes, in some ways that have been detailed.
You are right on here. Testing should have happened PRIOR to the CRB laying down the rule. Read this part VERY carefully - the ITAC had NO PART in the decision, the sizing or the implementation dates for the SIR.
I have seen data on 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34mm SIR's. I hope that the CRB will release findings in their summary statement.
You are 100% wrong on this. That post was as detailed as it gets. If you still have questions after really reading it, please post them. This process has been posted here manay times and has the support of the vast majority.
See above (and in multiple explanations in this thread) about what was 'wrong' when the rubber hit the rollers.
Nobody is backpedaling. We got a recommendation from Raetech on a size and the reasoning behind it. The CRB decided to go 2mm larger based on testing. As far as due dillegence and teh ruling, that is a question for the CRB as explained above.
See my first response. Let's talk real issues instead of your wrong assumptions about bias that have been shot down. It may appear like there could be an issue but the structure doesn't allow it. Move on.
Please do. This is all being done on the up and up. There is nothig to hide. For specifics on the actually decision and timing etc, send a letter to the CRB, they did it all.



No need. You are doing a great job yourself.
[/b]


Andy, all of the text you typed is well & good. However, know this: I did not say that I think you have a conflict of interest.

I said that a large % of the BMW community thinks you do...and everything that has come out of your mouth has only enhanced it. My opinion is irrelevant, and i have not expressed it (if you read my posts here carefully). But the appearance is there, according to a whole raft of folks, and you have done NOTHING to reduce or eliminate it. It's great your friends like you & all. My friends like me, too. So what?

My point is that, despite your protestations, these perceptions have NOT gone away or been "shot down". Rather, they have only grown...and this moronic 29mm decision, mandated to be in effect in 5 weeks, while only making 160rwhp in a bona fide test, only cements that perception. And sorry, but you ARE backpedaling.

This process was very un-transparent. And now, like it or not, you ARE blaming the vendor (again, a party with a major conflict of interest) for giving you advice which increased his sales, instead of dumping this whole rotten idea & starting over.

I appreciate your admission that ITAC should have done due diligence FIRST. That is a big step! Now, to hell with the CRB: it is incumbent on YOU to release 2 things:

1) results from 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34mm SIR's you tested
2) minutes from all ITAC meeting in which you participated where this issue was discussed. Why are you avoiding this issue?????

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy...Can we at least hear a summary of the results...ie xxmm equaled xxxrwhp...???

Is this too much to ask?

If you have this info...I see no "danger" in releasing it...other than the truth (a different truth perhaps?)!

TIA


[/b]

Not too much to ask, I would be asking the same thing but let's just wait until the CRB releases a statement. It's their baby, not mine or the ITAC's.

[Harry Balszac]

Hey Ball Sack, exactly what truth have I denied?
The whole SIR thing stinks to high heaven. There's something going on w/ these things that nobody's telling. I love how people like to jump down Andy's throat because he works on RX7s, but I haven't seen many (any?) people talking about the blatant conflict of interest w/ David Finch promoting a technology and product that his company sells. I've heard about all the money and time he's 'donated' [sic] w.r.t the use of SIRs. The man is in business, and owns a company that has developed and marketed SIRs. He hasn't 'donated' anything. What he's done is spend money to develop a market for a product his company sells.

I also love the people that whine because the SIR effects everybody's motors, and doens't just chop power off the top. Boo frickin' hoo, you can't have a winning car w/ a j/y motor. Welcome to the rest of IT's world.
[/b]


Nice. Are you IT's best, Bill?

What truth are you denying? Simple: That there is a major appearance of conflict of interest/favoritism here.

Now go trash-talk someone else. Your point of view is irrelevant to me.



Not too much to ask, I would be asking the same thing but let's just wait until the CRB releases a statement. It's their baby, not mine or the ITAC's.
[/b]


I am sorry, sir, but, with all due respect, that is a total cop-out.

[buldogge]

Hey Bill... I don't know who these generalizations are levied at...but...I don't have a j/y motor...my motor is FULLY built...as I have already stated, I don't do MOTEC however. Once again...you believe that mandating MOTEC use IS the way to go for IT???

BTW...Several people have whined about Mr. Finch's conflict/product/whatever and were summarily shot-down.



I also love the people that whine because the SIR effects everybody's motors, and doens't just chop power off the top. Boo frickin' hoo, you can't have a winning car w/ a j/y motor. Welcome to the rest of IT's world.
[/b]

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, all of the text you typed is well & good. However, know this: I did not say that I think you have a conflict of interest.[/b]

Do you think I let what I do in my spare time with Mazda's, influences my votes on the committee? If you do, you are wrong. Like I said, the system won't allow it. I would have been out on my ass years ago. I am about to buy an E36 M3 that I once raced in the 90's and we did of course buy Tim Richmond's old E36 World Challenge car...


I said that a large % of the BMW community thinks you do...and everything that has come out of your mouth has only enhanced it. My opinion is irrelevant, and i have not expressed it (if you read my posts here carefully). But the appearance is there, according to a whole raft of folks, and you have done NOTHING to reduce or eliminate it. It's great your friends like you & all. My friends like me, too. So what?[/b]

The people who have taken the time to listen...and understand the issues have no problems.


My point is that, despite your protestations, these perceptions have NOT gone away or been "shot down". Rather, they have only grown...and this moronic 29mm decision, mandated to be in effect in 5 weeks, while only making 160rwhp in a bona fide test, only cements that perception. And sorry, but you ARE backpedaling.[/b]

Again with the conflict of interest. Get to the issues. If you can't let go of this one, I can't help you.


This process was very un-transparent. And now, like it or not, you ARE blaming the vendor (again, a party with a major conflict of interest) for giving you advice which increased his sales, instead of dumping this whole rotten idea & starting over.[/b]

I am telling you that the sizing we got FROM Finch turned out to NOT BE the size the CRB went with. What is your beef with that? There was a mistake made - the CRB for making it a rule without testing and the initial sizing of 27mm. Not sure what else you want to here. Backpedaling? So be it. Some would say it's a correction to a mistake.



appreciate your admission that ITAC should have done due diligence FIRST. That is a big step! Now, to hell with the CRB: it is incumbent on YOU to release 2 things:

1) results from 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34mm SIR's you tested
2) minutes from all ITAC meeting in which you participated where this issue was discussed. Why are you avoiding this issue????? [/b]

No it's not. The CRB did the testing. They will release the data.

Ask me my opinion on any BMW issue and I will tell you.

[Geo]

Well I know Chuck, and his engines are clearanced to make HP immediately.

All these personal attacks and accusations have to stop, guys this isn't JR HIGH SCHOOL! I'm disappointed that the results haven't been posted as promised, I'm alittle bummed that the CRB hasn't made it manditory for the placement of the SIR so now it's a gussing game. The CRB has made a decision. Try it if you don't like the results, we have other options.
[/b]

Speaking of Jr. High...

How in bloody hell was that a personal attack or accusation? I'm at a loss for this....

[e36its]

I also love the people that whine because the SIR effects everybody's motors, and doens't just chop power off the top. Boo frickin' hoo, you can't have a winning car w/ a j/y motor. Welcome to the rest of IT's world.[/b]
That might be directed at me, dunno... if so, I appreciate you raising the discource by using pejorative terms like "whine". Helpful.

I do see your point. A car should not motor away and win when built to less than the full extent of the rules. However, I'm not sure you can say that the E36 folk are now in the rest of IT's world. Nobody else is mandated to use a performance-decreasing device whose implementation and impacts are not well understood. E36 owners are out by ourselves in uncharted waters here, aren't we?

tom

[dj10]

Therefore, I won't respond to any of the less than reasonble comments and claims here.

In terms of the placement of the SIR that I observed at the tests I was present for, I can say this:
When the SIR was placed directly in front of the HFM (?) AFM (?) the car ran poorly and was clearly affected by the pressure variations the SIR presented, even low in the rev range. So we moved the meter to a location, as I explained many posts up, upstream of the SIR.

The wire reached easily, we didn't see the same issues, and the A/F ratio was right in the range it should be, and matched the baseline runs.

Now, is it possible to mount the SIR further upsteam of the meter and acheive good results? I don't know. I understand that Dave Finch (from what has been repeated here) states that that is the way he tested, but I am unaware of any tests he conducted.
[/b]

Jake, we'll be talking to Dave shortly. If we find out any new info I'll post it. I'll also be testing my car on track and dyno so I'll have info from the tests. I have a new engine and I'll break it in before I get on the dyno.
I would like to know Jake if you tried the SIR in differnet positions upstream of the AFM? I would think the best place if any would be just after the air filter if it would work at all. But I've been know to be wrong before. :D

[DoubleD]

Not too much to ask, I would be asking the same thing but let's just wait until the CRB releases a statement. It's their baby, not mine or the ITAC's.
[/b]

You promoted it. You backed it. You promised it would work and said "trust me".

You abstained from the final ITAC recommendation vote, as I understand it. That's mighty christian of you. (BTW, why is it that you abstained? Is it because you were concerned about the perception of bias or conflict of interest?)

ITAC, at your urging, recommended the SIR to CRB. It is, to be as polite as possible, disingenuous to now say ITAC was not involved.

It does NOT work as advertised. You were wrong. You, despite having promised to do so on this site, have not stood up and taken responsibility. You have blamed CRB and now Finch instead.

Finch is a salesman. I don't blame a fisherman for fishing. You bought his pitch hook, line, and sinker. It is your failure to research that has created this SNAFU. How dare you demand others research when you are wholely unwilling to do so yourself? Listening to a salesman's pitch is not research!

FYI, since you want to leave the data to the engineers, please forward it to me immediately. I am an engineer and use the same principle involved in the SIR frequently in my work dilution of high temperature, reactive and corrosive gasses. I told you point blank that 27 would not perform as you promised and that it would not be transparent.

As far as I can tell, this is the coup de gras of your 3 year vendetta against the E36. Congratulations. 3 drivers have posted in this thread alone that they are done with SCCA. I'm sure that doesn't break your heart though.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I do see your point. A car should not motor away and win when built to less than the full extent of the rules. However, I'm not sure you can say that the E36 folk are now in the rest of IT's world. Nobody else is mandated to use a performance-decreasing device whose implementation and impacts are not well understood. E36 owners are out by ourselves in uncharted waters here, aren't we?

tom [/b]

Tom,

Excellent observation again. The counter-opinion is that if you want to run 300lbs UNDER your 'process' weight, you have to reduce power to the appropriate level for that weight to match the class parameters. Nobody else gets to do this either.

I think it's fair to ask E36ers to pick their poison, an SIR that dictates the appropriate power level for 2850 OR to take an unrestricted engine and put it in a chassis that has to weigh what the process says it has to.

The CRB has obviously chosen the SIR. It is my true belief they think it is the best for all parties.

[lateapex911]

Some simple history.

E36 makes too much power in a full build.

PCAs are implemented.

E36 is discussed by ITAC (and CRB), weight is discussed, and the SIR is suggested. ITAC is interested, but recommends weight.

CRB decides on a 27mm as recommended by computer simulations or other modeling done by Raetech, one of three vendors.

The sizing is questioned, there is some discussion and it is decided that real world testing needs to be done.

Testing commences, in a number of locations with a number of different cars. Unfortunatley, one car isn't a valid data point as it's not running correctly and hasn't been broken in, and another never materializes. Which limits data points.

The results are discussed again, and while the ITAC again likes some aspects of the SIR, it recommends weight.

The CRB decides on the 29mm SIR, but moves the implementation date back a month.

Those are the highpoints.

[Fastfred92]

I think it's fair to ask E36ers to pick their poison, an SIR that dictates the appropriate power level for 2850 OR to take an unrestricted engine and put it in a chassis that has to weigh what the process says it has to.

[/b]

Andy, I think weight is fine, just dont see the magical HP that makes 300 lbs your number... I dont understand why these mythical dyno sheets cant be made public ( both e36 and RX7 ) and it is my guess that most of the fast RX7's are not motec cars yet you point out to everyone (e36) that you are not a full build if you dont motec...... same for RX guys right??


And Bill, what j/y motors can you document that have won ITS races when there was somebody else running in the class ???? Here in the SE the j/y motors run behind the pack, not in front.....

And Steve E...... I am a fan of yours( us SE guys need to stick together, remember the war), just pointing out that you were within 2/10'ths at VIR this weekend, and that is the record. Q times don't make records and remember Chet's raced here at VIR several times both hot and mild but still holds the record with a e36 with NO plate, SIR whatever, just magical Sunbelt HP. Everybody has pointed out that he just checks out so I dont think cars nipping at his heels made for slower race times...

this smart ass is back to ebay, looking for clean RX7's maybe no sunroof...... eh

[seckerich]

It is my understanding that the ITAC has recommended weight be added to the BMW for the last few years and each time has been shot down by the CRB with some other lame remedy. How is it then that you say they are the champion of the SIR? I don't know most of them personally that I am aware of, but I have always had straight answers to any questions. If you want to go with a lynch mob--a call to the CRB is the best start. This has been 3 years of BS that NONE of the ITAC should have had to deal with. Every time the CRB gets faced with the weight increase they trot out another well intentioned but useless fix. For some reason that I would really like to know they feel they just have to make an SIR work in SCCA. 3150 seems a little high for the Bimmer but it does need something. If you have the numbers to make it work just spec the D--- intake system and have them made at a fair price--no exceptions. Sure have no problem with spec tires and other items?? Should give same results and no questions on where it was mounted and less chance of defeat like the flat plate.

[stevel]

I said that a large % of the BMW community thinks you do...and everything that has come out of your mouth has only enhanced it. [/b]

If that large % of the BMW community are the good folks that posted in that mega thread about SIR's over on Bimmerforum's and that's an accurate representation of the BMW community, than I am sad for those people. I have a hard time believing those people are even adults and trying to reason with them is futile at best. If that's the way they are going to treat other people, why should he even bother explaining himself? Just to be abused more? He tried his best to explain himself and just had shot after shot taken at him personally for no good reason.





I appreciate your admission that ITAC should have done due diligence FIRST. That is a big step! Now, to hell with the CRB: it is incumbent on YOU to release 2 things:

1) results from 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34mm SIR's you tested
2) minutes from all ITAC meeting in which you participated where this issue was discussed. Why are you avoiding this issue?????
[/b]

No, it's not incumbent on him or any other member of the ITAC to provide you with any info. It was NOT there decision NOR there recommendation. If you want the information go to the proper channels and get it! Get off your ass and do some work if you want some answers. Demanding it from people that aren't in the position to give it or even have all of this info is going to get you no where.




My point is that, despite your protestations, these perceptions have NOT gone away or been "shot down". Rather, they have only grown...and this moronic 29mm decision, mandated to be in effect in 5 weeks, while only making 160rwhp in a bona fide test, only cements that perception. And sorry, but you ARE backpedaling.
[/b]

Your argument is that 29mm is no good based on ONE, yes ONE, dyno sheet that reads 160rwhp? The same motor that made 180rwhp as a baseline and had an awful A/F ratio? The one that was supposedly tuned and a pro motor? You gotta come up with something better as to why 29mm is no good. Using that car as a datapoint holds no water for an argument. What you would rather have? Lose 19hp or have 300lbs added? I'll take the 19hp loss anyday.

s

[lateapex911]

ITAC, at your urging, recommended the SIR to CRB. It is, to be as polite as possible, disingenuous to now say ITAC was not involved.
[/b]

Huh?? Please provide your factual backing for that statement. As an engineer, i am sure you understand the need to provide the backing facts for your conclusions.




Jake, we'll be talking to Dave shortly. If we find out any new info I'll post it. I'll also be testing my car on track and dyno so I'll have info from the tests. I have a new engine and I'll break it in before I get on the dyno.
I would like to know Jake if you tried the SIR in differnet positions upstream of the AFM? I would think the best place if any would be just after the air filter if it would work at all. But I've been know to be wrong before. :D
[/b]

As I recall, we pushed it out with a spacer about 3", but it didn't resolve the issues. As time was limited, we mounted the AFM upstream and left it there for the rest of the runs. It will be interesting to hear of your results. What dyno type will you be using ?

[Geo]

You abstained from the final ITAC recommendation vote, as I understand it. That's mighty christian of you. (BTW, why is it that you abstained? Is it because you were concerned about the perception of bias or conflict of interest?)

ITAC, at your urging, recommended the SIR to CRB. [/b]

I don't know where you get your info, but it's wrong.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You promoted it. You backed it. You promised it would work and said "trust me".[/b]

Yup - we supported the decision the CRB made. We trusted the info that was given to us.


You abstained from the final ITAC recommendation vote, as I understand it. That's mighty christian of you. (BTW, why is it that you abstained? Is it because you were concerned about the perception of bias or conflict of interest?)[/b]

Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble but there was no need to vote in 2005. It was unanimous. The ITAC recomended the process weight. Knowing that the CRB went with a FPR in 2004-2005 when we recommended the weight then too, we also recomemended that if they thought the weight was too much (300+ lbs) and they wanted to keep the current weight of 2850, they would need to restrict the power to a level appropriate for that weight to fit into the performance envelope of ITS.


ITAC, at your urging, recommended the SIR to CRB. It is, to be as polite as possible, disingenuous to now say ITAC was not involved.[/b]

See above. Check your facts.


It does NOT work as advertised. You were wrong. You, despite having promised to do so on this site, have not stood up and taken responsibility. You have blamed CRB and now Finch instead.[/b]

What responsibility do you want ME to take? It wasn't my decision. We supported the CRB in their decision. We (the SCCA) were wrong on the sizing. The CRB has recognized the error and is fixing it. THAT is what I told you would happen if the sizing was wrong.


Finch is a salesman. I don't blame a fisherman for fishing. You bought his pitch hook, line, and sinker. It is your failure to research that has created this SNAFU. How dare you demand others research when you are wholely unwilling to do so yourself? Listening to a salesman's pitch is not research! [/b]

What motive does he have to give the CRB the wrong sizing? The technology is used in other classes in the SCCA, CRB members have experieince with it. It was a mathematical model that was off. Should testing have been done? Yes. Said that.


FYI, since you want to leave the data to the engineers, please forward it to me immediately. I am an engineer and use the same principle involved in the SIR frequently in my work dilution of high temperature, reactive and corrosive gasses. I told you point blank that 27 would not perform as you promised and that it would not be transparent. [/b]

Call Raetech if you want to talk the talk. I don't recall you telling anyone that the 29mm was the right size...where is that quote? I think you dismissed the whole technology when it came out. I could be wrong. Point me to where you recommend a size.


As far as I can tell, this is the coup de gras of your 3 year vendetta against the E36. Congratulations. 3 drivers have posted in this thread alone that they are done with SCCA. I'm sure that doesn't break your heart though.

[/b]

Ahh, there it is. The parting shot based in fluff and fiction. I wrote in to the CRB asking for a weight correction in 2003 when I WAS an ITS competitor (before there was a method to do so) because it was pretty obvious it was wrong. I was not alone. Since then, myriads of letters requesting something be done have been logged. I can name plenty of people on this site who have written in. The members put it on the agenda, not me.

I am sorry these three have decided to go elsewhere. Without a fair shot with the 29mm, I think they are wrong to do so. Having said that, it is a pretty frustrating process to have to weather, I understand that.

I am done with you Double. Your accusations are rediculous and you just want to fight. DJ has it right.

[seckerich]

Andy, I think weight is fine, just dont see the magical HP that makes 300 lbs your number... I dont understand why these mythical dyno sheets cant be made public ( both e36 and RX7 ) and it is my guess that most of the fast RX7's are not motec cars yet you point out to everyone (e36) that you are not a full build if you dont motec...... same for RX guys right??
And Bill, what j/y motors can you document that have won ITS races when there was somebody else running in the class ???? Here in the SE the j/y motors run behind the pack, not in front.....

And Steve E...... I am a fan of yours( us SE guys need to stick together, remember the war), just pointing out that you were within 2/10'ths at VIR this weekend, and that is the record. Q times don't make records and remember Chet's raced here at VIR several times both hot and mild but still holds the record with a e36 with NO plate, SIR whatever, just magical Sunbelt HP. Everybody has pointed out that he just checks out so I dont think cars nipping at his heels made for slower race times...

this smart ass is back to ebay, looking for clean RX7's maybe no sunroof...... eh
[/b]
No disrespect intended Fred--we just disagree sometimes. :D I think 300 is a little much for the Bimmer as well. Clear track laps just don't hold up in the race though. An average BMW can hold you up in every corner where you might be able to carry the speed with the RX and then just motor away on the next straight to just repeat the same thing every lap. The BMW can hang with us in the corners so where is the weakness? Give me 30HP in pocket and equal handling and see what happens. PS Ran 2:14.4 in Qual at 38 degree temps. Cold = Fast I would play with cam timing-valve angles-stem size- or my vanos/vtec--but all I can work with is mixture and timing--aint Motec grand!!

[Harry Balszac]

Do you think I let what I do in my spare time with Mazda's, influences my votes on the committee? If you do, you are wrong. Like I said, the system won't allow it. I would have been out on my ass years ago. I am about to buy an E36 M3 that I once raced in the 90's and we did of course buy Tim Richmond's old E36 World Challenge car...
The people who have taken the time to listen...and understand the issues have no problems.
Again with the conflict of interest. Get to the issues. If you can't let go of this one, I can't help you.
I am telling you that the sizing we got FROM Finch turned out to NOT BE the size the CRB went with. What is your beef with that? There was a mistake made - the CRB for making it a rule without testing and the initial sizing of 27mm. Not sure what else you want to here. Backpedaling? So be it. Some would say it's a correction to a mistake.


No it's not. The CRB did the testing. They will release the data.

Ask me my opinion on any BMW issue and I will tell you.
[/b]


Sigh. I am sad to see what looks like more backpedaling, Andy. And I'd still like you & your cronies to tell me how posting my real name has affected my credibility. LOL!

And I notice, by its absence, any answer to my simple request that you release ALL transcripts of all ITAC meetings in which you participated and this issue was discussed.

Why, pray tell, are you totally avoiding even answering this reasonable request.

Do you have something to hide? What is REALLY in those transcripts, Andy.

As for Steve...sorry, sport, but your broad-brush insult of the BMW community who happens to participate over at BF speaks volumes about you. It, frankly, tells us all we need to know about your agenda & biases. No, Steve, he did NOT "explain himself". He said "trust me" and we did. And look what has resulted. And now he is blaming raetech.

Too damned funny.

By the way, Steve, it is "their", not "there".

[Geo]

Sigh. I am sad to see what looks like more backpedaling, Andy. And I'd still like you & your cronies to tell me how posting my real name has affected my credibility. LOL!

And I notice, by its absence, any answer to my simple request that you release ALL transcripts of all ITAC meetings in which you participated and this issue was discussed.

Why, pray tell, are you totally avoiding even answering this reasonable request.

Do you have something to hide? What is REALLY in those transcripts, Andy.

[/b]

Well, you've already been told, but I'll make it official....

If you want that information, write to the CRB. The ITAC serves the CRB. If they feel you are entitled to that information, they can provide it.

[RSTPerformance]

Not going to wast my time reading all of 1 days worth of posts that add up to 3 pages and 1,500 views of this whole nonsence :dead_horse:

but I did want to show my support for Andy and others who have helped make a change where one was certainly needed. I will wait to judge if it was the best choice till after I see real results.

Congrats, and keep up the dedication to making IT and SCCA the best!!! :happy204:

Thanks again;

Raymond "I wonder if some of those slow ITS BMW's will go back to BMW club?" Blethen

PS: Don't bother replying to my comments, I probably wont get them as I don't have enough time in the day/night to read through everything in this. Feel free to PM me sometime though :024:

[stevel]

As for Steve...sorry, sport, but your broad-brush insult of the BMW community who happens to participate over at BF speaks volumes about you. It, frankly, tells us all we need to know about your agenda & biases. No, Steve, he did NOT "explain himself". He said "trust me" and we did. And look what has resulted. And now he is blaming raetech.
[/b]

My broad brush insult? My agenda & biases? Wow. Hate to break it to you "sport" but I really have no dog in this hunt, at all. I was just asking if this large % of the BMW community that "perceives" these conflicts of interests is representative of the people that posted (bashed) in that SIR thread? If they are one in the same, I merely said there's no point in repeating himself. They're just going to take more shots at him. I made no broad brush insult of the BMW community. Read it again. Did I take issue with the way some people took personal shots at others in that SIR thread? Absolutely and those are the people I did insult. You're looking for something that isn't there. And he explained himself, over and over in that BF thread. To paraphrase it all into "trust me" is total BS and you didn't obviously read it all.



By the way, Steve, it is "their", not "there".
[/b]

This also speaks volumes about you too. By attempting to belittle people and lacking a solid argument on the topic at hand.

s

[Harry Balszac]

Well, you've already been told, but I'll make it official....

If you want that information, write to the CRB. The ITAC serves the CRB. If they feel you are entitled to that information, they can provide it.
[/b]


Geo, I have, and thank you.

However, regarding your last sentence. If they feel I am "entitled" to it??? That holier-than-thou elitist mentality does NOT show the SCCA in its best light. Is this really how you see things, too, Geo?

Let me make this EXTREMELY clear: you had better frikking BELIEVE we are "entitled" to it. Keeping this basic info secret will remove any remaining shred of credibility the vaunted poltroons in the CRB and ITAC have left, and will confirm, beyond any reasonabe doubt, the mass suspicions that underhandedness, skullduggery, corruption, and self-dealing was at play here. Irrespective of whether there is any truth to that or not!! Frankly, it would be disastrous for SCCA to NOT release this information.

Still waiting to see if I am "entitled" to see transcripts of all ITAC meeting where Andy was a participant & this issue was discussed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Do you have something to hide? What is REALLY in those transcripts, Andy.

[/b]

Like I said, ask me my thoughts on a BMW issue and I will tell you. There is nothing to hide, just ask. ASK.

[Harry Balszac]

Like I said, ask me my thoughts on a BMW issue and I will tell you. There is nothing to hide, just ask. ASK.
[/b]


Please provide all transcripts of ITAC meetings where you were present & this BMW issue was discussed.

There, I have followed your request exactly, asking you about a BMW issue.

Do you have something to hide in those transcripts, Andy?

[seckerich]

[quote]
Sigh. I am sad to see what looks like more backpedaling, Andy. And I'd still like you & your cronies to tell me how posting my real name has affected my credibility. LOL!

That is how you smell a skunk crawling in to stir up crap and make personal attacks on their first day. Does smell a little rank about now. Cronies?? Sounds more like an ITAC gang--do you have some worldly info your engineering mind can share with us?? We have all learned so much from your educated posts and insight. :happy204:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Please provide all transcripts of ITAC meetings where you were present & this BMW issue was discussed.

There, I have followed your request exactly, asking you about a BMW issue.

Do you have something to hide in those transcripts, Andy? [/b]

What specific BMW related issue are we talking about, the SIR? Transcripts are not needed. I wil ltell you my thoughts on those and any other topic you want me to address. How many times are you going to ask me if there is something to hide? Ask me what topic you want my stand on, and I will give it to you. Or are you not done hiding behind your Black Helicopter?

[DoubleD]

Huh?? Please provide your factual backing for that statement. As an engineer, i am sure you understand the need to provide the backing facts for your conclusions.

[/b]

"Searching has been disabled. This is most likely automatic and due to high server load. Please try again later."

Gotta love Bimmerforums...

Andy specifically stated that ITAC offered two options in the recommendation to CRB: weight or SIR.

[Harry Balszac]

What specific BMW related issue are we talking about, the SIR? Transcripts are not needed. I wil ltell you my thoughts on those and any other topic you want me to address. How many times are you going to ask me if there is something to hide? Ask me what topic you want my stand on, and I will give it to you. Or are you not done hiding behind your Black Helicopter?
[/b]


Andy, with all due respect, transcripts are MOST DEFINITELY needed.

Will you please provide them, in their entirety?

[Geo]

Geo, I have, and thank you.
[/b]

Very good.



However, regarding your last sentence. If they feel I am "entitled" to it??? That holier-than-thou elitist mentality does NOT show the SCCA in its best light. Is this really how you see things, too, Geo?

Let me make this EXTREMELY clear: you had better frikking BELIEVE we are "entitled" to it.
[/b]

First off, ad hoc committees are not required to publish minutes. We serve the CRB in an advisory capacity on matters concerning Improved Touring (no secret there). I don't know why ad hoc committees are not required to publish minutes. I'm not sure what the policy is. You'll simply have to take it up with the CRB. I don't know what you are entitled to wrt to bylaws of the club.



Keeping this basic info secret will remove any remaining shred of credibility the vaunted poltroons in the CRB and ITAC have left, and will confirm, beyond any reasonabe doubt, the mass suspicions that underhandedness, skullduggery, corruption, and self-dealing was at play here.
[/b]

Are you always so melodramatic?

[Harry Balszac]

"Searching has been disabled. This is most likely automatic and due to high server load. Please try again later."

Gotta love Bimmerforums...

Andy specifically stated that ITAC offered two options in the recommendation to CRB: weight or SIR.
[/b]


Yup.

[lateapex911]

This has become a weird thread. Totally NOT like IT.com. Reading it has been like...well, in some ways a waste of time, but in others, a bit sickening. I feel as though I've had an out of body experience. But it left me with some questions.

Who are these guys who never posted before today? Why do they hate Andy?? He isn't the only ITAC member who posts, certainly he has a lot of patience...but why him??? Trust me, the SIR sure wasn't HIS idea, LOL.

Who ARE you guys?? Really...what do you drive?? Why the derisive comments? Why the rude behavior? The impossible demands?? In the big scheme of things, does anybody know what is REALLY going to happen? Are we rushing to judgement?
Can ONE guy influence an ADVISORY board of 9, which then influences a board of 7??

I'm also surprised at the total lack of big picture thinking here, and the short memory...just three years ago, you had to be friends or on a board to have half the info you now get on a daily basis from people who are in the process.

If you don't like the process, write a request for it to be changed. Sign your name, your member number and what you drive.

If you have a gripe or a charge against a member of any board, write a letter and ....you got it..sign your name.

[Harry Balszac]

Very good.
First off, ad hoc committees are not required to publish minutes. We serve the CRB in an advisory capacity on matters concerning Improved Touring (no secret there). I don't know why ad hoc committees are not required to publish minutes. I'm not sure what the policy is. You'll simply have to take it up with the CRB. I don't know what you are entitled to wrt to bylaws of the club.
Are you always so melodramatic?
[/b]


Geo, I am truly sorry you see this as melodramatic. Not my intent. I think you will see that a very large number of the BMW ITS community sees it the exact same way.

[stevel]

I think you will see that a very large number of the BMW ITS community sees it the exact same way.
[/b]

Is this a community you are a part of?

Are you an SCCA member?

Do you race, build cars, crew, corner work, volunteer on race weekends, build motors, setup cars?

Just wondering where your stance and position is coming from.

s

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, with all due respect, transcripts are MOST DEFINITELY needed.

Will you please provide them, in their entirety? [/b]

Funny, I see no specific question. 3 seperate PM's predicted as such. I guess you don't care to hear my position on the issues. Can't hear you over the whir of the engines.

AB

[lateapex911]

Yup.
[/b]

So Andy said we recommended weight or SIR? In what order?
Fact is that we recommended weight...and if they rejected weight, then SIR. As opposed to an FPR... Or nothing.

Our recommendations, (which is what we do, we advise) were, in this order:
1- Weight
2-SIR
3-FPR
4-Nothing

So, why not quote the exact statement of Andy's? (When they clear up the server)

[Harry Balszac]

Is this a community you are a part of?

Are you an SCCA member?

Do you race, build cars, crew, corner work, volunteer on race weekends, build motors, setup cars?

Just wondering where your stance and position is coming from.

s
[/b]


Yes, of course: I am an SCCA member. My membership expires 12/31/06.

I also have numerous racing licenses, including SCCA Pro (previously SCCA National), FIA, BMW Club, and others.

My stance is coming from being connected to a very large BMW community who is really...well, I think I have adequately expressed how I perceive they are feeling right now, especially in light of Bill's dyno sheet. This community--like many--has a wide variety of people in it with a wide variety of styles of expression, some of which you may like & some of which you may not. Just like any other subset of racers--or people.

My stance is that stuff like this snowballs when there is a perception that the process was based on favoritism benefitting ANYONE. And the snowball gets ever-bigger when all that has happened in this epic, and all that has been said to defend it at all costs, keeps making that perception more & more lifelike & real. And when nearly all requests for transparency are met with statements such as "they will decide if you are entitled to that information" and "transcripts are not needed", etc.

[Geo]

Geo, I am truly sorry you see this as melodramatic. Not my intent. I think you will see that a very large number of the BMW ITS community sees it the exact same way.
[/b]

While that may be, it doesn't mean it's not a snipe hunt.

Andy, Jake, and I have tried to be as open as possible. If you want official meeting minutes, you'll have to go through official channels. I see that as reasonable.

[Harry Balszac]

Funny, I see no specific question. 3 seperate PM's predicted as such. I guess you don't care to hear my position on the issues. Can't hear you over the whir of the engines.

AB
[/b]


And yet another dodge?

Andy, this is not helping. I have asked you SPECIFICALLY for SPECIFIC transcripts of SPECIFIC meetings.

Your refusal to willingly produce them is only adding to the broad perception that you have something to hide.

Do you?

Why will you not produce them?

[Geo]

And yet another dodge?

Andy, this is not helping. I have asked you SPECIFICALLY for SPECIFIC transcripts of SPECIFIC meetings.

Your refusal to willingly produce them is only adding to the broad perception that you have something to hide.

Do you?

Why will you not produce them?
[/b]

Did you study under McCarthy?

[Harry Balszac]

Did you study under McCarthy?
[/b]


No, Clinton.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So Andy said we recommended weight or SIR? In what order?
Fact is that we recommended weight...and if they rejected weight, then SIR. As opposed to an FPR... Or nothing.

Our recommendations, (which is what we do, we advise) were, in this order:
1- Weight
2-SIR
3-FPR
4-Nothing

So, why not quote the exact statement of Andy's? (When they clear up the server)
[/b]

Because it may not serve his argument. Here is the quote from Jan 23rd:


Understand that the ITAC never recommended the 2005 implamentation of the restrictor plate, it was the CRB's decision. For 2006, when we found out that some were 'cheating' the RP in 2005, we asked the CRB to either set the weight were it should be, or give it an SIR.[/b]

And again here on the 24th:


While I do sympathize that year-to-year changes are hard to swallow, the CRB is doing it's best. For 2005, the ITAC did NOT recommend the restrictor, as a matter of fact, it wasnt even on our list. With SIR technology coming into acceptance within the SCCA, the ITAC gave it to the CRB as an option to a 'corrected' weight. They chose the SIR.[/b]

And the kicker on the 25th.


...and while I support the CRB because they tell us they know how to size this thing, the ITAC wanted the 'process' weight. We understood that it might not fly, so we suggested two options, *IF* they could accuratly restrict to the magic number. I am cautiously optamistic and confident at the same time.[/b]

How's that?

[lateapex911]

Because it may not serve his argument. Here is the quote from Jan 23rd:
And again here on the 24th:
And the kicker on the 25th.
How's that?
[/b]

it's good, except you mis-spelled "optamistic'...perhaps a preview of the future? ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

And yet another dodge?

Andy, this is not helping. I have asked you SPECIFICALLY for SPECIFIC transcripts of SPECIFIC meetings.

Your refusal to willingly produce them is only adding to the broad perception that you have something to hide.

Do you?

Why will you not produce them? [/b]

Maybe if I type slower........

They are not ours to give out. Ask the CRB for them. In the absence of my authority to get you any 'transcripts', I have offered to publically give you my stance on any BMW issue - and you have refused to ask any questions. Afraid you won't get an answer that paints me as the devil?

Yikes.

[stevel]

Yes, of course: I am an SCCA member. My membership expires 12/31/06.

I also have numerous racing licenses, including SCCA Pro (previously SCCA National), FIA, BMW Club, and others.

[/b]

Thanks for the background. I didn't realize Corporate Turnaround Consultants had such a sense of humor to sign up as Harry Balszac.




I think I have adequately expressed how I perceive they are feeling right now, especially in light of Bill's dyno sheet.

[/b]

All of this frustration and uproar over 1 dyno sheet? One? That's it? And he, what, lost 19rwhp? If someone told me we'll take 19rwhp or add 300lbs you bet your ass I'd take the 19rwhp loss. I don't see how that dyno sheet proves/disproves anything. It's a bad datapoint to base an argument on being that the baseline wasn't a good sample to begin with. And I don't even see what's so bad about it. To me that restrictor is still a gift. You'd be much worse off with the weight.

s

[seckerich]

Because it may not serve his argument. Here is the quote from Jan 23rd:
And again here on the 24th:
And the kicker on the 25th.
How's that?
[/b]
Probably not good enough --you didn't pet him and tell him what he wanted to hear. Lets see if he will ask again :dead_horse:

[e36its]

Send your concerns to the CRB. May be too late if you are against SIR's but at least you will be on record.
[/b]
It's a good suggestion, Andy. Here's the problem: I don't know what to think at this point.

If SIRs were shown to be all that we believed they would be, then they would be clearly preferable to weight -- because if I can't go, at least I could still stop and turn. If SIRs were proven to be a completely problematic and expensive PITA that doesn't let the car perform in a reasonable way, I'd be in favor of lead -- because at least the issues around making weight perform are well understood.

The issue is that I don't know which of these (or the myriad of possibilities in between) is the case. I don't have the cash to test out several permutations and see what makes the most sense, and to date I don't have the information that would show me what happens in the real world.

I'm kinda wishing I had bought that Spec Racer Ford...

tom

[Matt Rowe]

Well this has gone beyond ridiculous.

To the ITAC members present, thank you for your effort in developing the process, reccomending weight as the first choice for the BMW and assisting with the testing on the SIR. I'm sorry the CRB choose to go with the SIR Option. But above all please stop arguing about this topic. Until ALL the dyno information that was collected on SIR testing has been released, or the mythical transcripts, there is no new information to put forth. Without new data this is just a shouting match and half of the opposition apparently doesn't even understand how the ITAC/CRB process works.

To the BMW community that feel persecuted by Andy, give it a rest. We can see you don't have any facts, in fact it's obvious you don't even understand how the ITAC and CRB function. What you have is one dyno plot for an engine that obviously was not fully tuned accorrding to the AFR included. There are other dyno plots out there, get them from the CRB and put them ALL out in the open and then they we can discuss if they show due diligence or a anti BMW bias. As for half truths and fears of bias in the ITAC, it would appear that no one outside of your small world sees the same thing. The current ITAC has made huge strides forward in transparency and accessibility. Oh, and in the process we now have some of the strongest and most diverse IT fields ever.

To the more reasonable BMW owners, thank you for your patience and understanding as the CRB tinkers with your cars. I'm sorry you've had to endure several "adjustments" but it would appear most of you can see the value in rebalancing the class even if the repeated adjustments are more than any IT racer should have to endure. Hopefully this last change will set things right and we can all get back to complaing about turn signal stalks and washer bottles.

To the CRB, please provide the SIR test data assembled on this issue so that we can see all of the data points. Please feel encouraged to also include the reasoning behind the decisions with the uncensored data.

To everyone, arguing back and forth based on one data point and half truths and conspiracy theories is pointless. Give it a rest and get the facts and data but for god's sake until then shut up.

And for the record, I don't even race ITS so the only dog I have in this hunt is to make sure the progress being made in IT continues.

[Geo]

Well this has gone beyond ridiculous.

To the ITAC members present, thank you for your effort in developing the process, reccomending weight as the first choice for the BMW and assisting with the testing on the SIR. I'm sorry the CRB choose to go with the SIR Option. But above all please stop arguing about this topic. Until ALL the dyno information that was collected on SIR testing has been released, or the mythical transcripts, there is no new information to put forth. Without new data this is just a shouting match and half of the opposition apparently doesn't even understand how the ITAC/CRB process works.
[/b]

You're right Matt.

I'm done here.

[e36its]

You will find it in detail in the rediculous thread on Bimmerforums. Post 101.[/b]
Andy --

I took a look back through that thread (boy, was that a fun read!) and pulled up the formula. Could you check my work here?

stock hp * typical IT power gains (25%) * desired lb / weight (12.8-12.9) = process weight

Applying this to the E36:
189 * 1.25 * 12.8 = 3024
189 * 1.25 * 12.9 = 3078

The lead everyone has been bandying about (and most notably putting in avatar form) is 300 lbs, for a weight total of 3150 lbs. Is the extra 75 to 125 lbs the subjective adders?

tom

[Bill Miller]

Well this has gone beyond ridiculous.

To the ITAC members present, thank you for your effort in developing the process, reccomending weight as the first choice for the BMW and assisting with the testing on the SIR. I'm sorry the CRB choose to go with the SIR Option. But above all please stop arguing about this topic. Until ALL the dyno information that was collected on SIR testing has been released, or the mythical transcripts, there is no new information to put forth. Without new data this is just a shouting match and half of the opposition apparently doesn't even understand how the ITAC/CRB process works.

To the BMW community that feel persecuted by Andy, give it a rest. We can see you don't have any facts, in fact it's obvious you don't even understand how the ITAC and CRB function. What you have is one dyno plot for an engine that obviously was not fully tuned accorrding to the AFR included. There are other dyno plots out there, get them from the CRB and put them ALL out in the open and then they we can discuss if they show due diligence or a anti BMW bias. As for half truths and fears of bias in the ITAC, it would appear that no one outside of your small world sees the same thing. The current ITAC has made huge strides forward in transparency and accessibility. Oh, and in the process we now have some of the strongest and most diverse IT fields ever.

To the more reasonable BMW owners, thank you for your patience and understanding as the CRB tinkers with your cars. I'm sorry you've had to endure several "adjustments" but it would appear most of you can see the value in rebalancing the class even if the repeated adjustments are more than any IT racer should have to endure. Hopefully this last change will set things right and we can all get back to complaing about turn signal stalks and washer bottles.

To the CRB, please provide the SIR test data assembled on this issue so that we can see all of the data points. Please feel encouraged to also include the reasoning behind the decisions with the uncensored data.

To everyone, arguing back and forth based on one data point and half truths and conspiracy theories is pointless. Give it a rest and get the facts and data but for god's sake until then shut up.

And for the record, I don't even race ITS so the only dog I have in this hunt is to make sure the progress being made in IT continues.
[/b]

Very well said Matt! :023:

Andy (and others), guys like Ball Sack and Double D aren't worth the effort that you've expended responding to them.

[Ron Earp]

The lead everyone has been bandying about (and most notably putting in avatar form) is 300 lbs, for a weight total of 3150 lbs. Is the extra 75 to 125 lbs the subjective adders?
tom
[/b]

Like this? I bet most of the drivers wish they had pushed for and gotten the lead - 200, 225, 250, or 300lbs - they would be better off.

I feel it is a sad day for IT. A beginning grassroots class and racing program, is implimenting SIR technology that doesn't belong here, IMHO. Can't wait to see how SIRs work on dual carb motors.

Good luck to the BMW group and hate to see you have to work all this out. And yes, that is sincere - I'm not an SIR fan.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy --

I took a look back through that thread (boy, was that a fun read!) and pulled up the formula. Could you check my work here?

stock hp * typical IT power gains (25%) * desired lb / weight (12.8-12.9) = process weight

Applying this to the E36:
189 * 1.25 * 12.8 = 3024
189 * 1.25 * 12.9 = 3078

The lead everyone has been bandying about (and most notably putting in avatar form) is 300 lbs, for a weight total of 3150 lbs. Is the extra 75 to 125 lbs the subjective adders?

tom [/b]

Your math is good, except it's old numbers. That is what would have been done if the car were classed today with no prior knowledge of power out. Some cars make 20% more, some make 30% more, some exceed 35% more in IT trim. The 1st gen RX-7 in ITA exceeds 40% improvment! When numbers are known, they are placed in the process. This allows for a much more accurate weight setting.

The E36 can exceed 30% increases (about 201whp using a 18% loss factor if you are playing at home), so that is used.

189 * 1.3 * 12.9 = 3169

This is before consideration for the adders. Adders are considerations for traits that are significant vs. the rest of the class. The tranny ratios are perfect, the brakes are large (but that is mitigated in my mind by the weight at this point) and the torque numbers are off the charts. It is very reasonable to assume 3150-3200 is a fair weight given the process all the other cars have to go through.

Now lets say 3200. That is 350lbs more than 2850. That is a HUGE number on the surface. Proponents of weight will tell you that isn't much more than curb weight. Plenty of cars in IT run over their curb weight, some way more than the E36 would at 3200, both in actual weight and especially in percentage. Proponents will tell you that everyone else has to run at process weight so why not the E36? Proponents will also counter that large increase with the fact that the car was never even near it's proper weight to begin with.

Detractors of weight will tell you that 350lbs is way too much. Safety always comes up. Ballast concerns fly around. Consumable costs are cited.

Proponents of the SIR will tell you that 350lbs is just too much. They will tell you that it doesn't affect driveability like a FPR. They will tell you that, while the initial cost of the product and the testing is real, the cost savings in tires, brakes, etc will easily offset the up-front costs.

Detractors of the SIR will say it hurts the underprepared guys the worst. They will say that the technology doesn't belong in IT and is against the philosophy of the class. They will tell you how it isn't fair to a guy who has $10K plus in his motor who is marginalized to 185whp. Timing comes up. Testing comes up. Placing it on other cars comes up.

The whole issue has to do with the 2850 weight. Right now, the E36 is the only car in all of Improved Touring that sits at a weight well under it's process total. If the car is to stay at 2850, the power has to come down. If the car is to return to an unresticted form, the weight has to go up.

The CRB decided that keeping the weight stable and adding this technonolgy would be the best in the long run. YMMV.

AB

[Bob Dowie]

Gentleman,

The ITAC members are doing a good job answering your questions and I'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'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

[Harry Balszac]

Maybe if I type slower........

They are not ours to give out. Ask the CRB for them. In the absence of my authority to get you any 'transcripts', I have offered to publically give you my stance on any BMW issue - and you have refused to ask any questions. Afraid you won't get an answer that paints me as the devil?

Yikes.
[/b]

Do you mean to tell me that the ITAC is not in a position to share its own proceedings & deliberations with the great unwashed paying membership?

I guess Geo had it right: we may not be "entitiled" to them, eh?

Andy, frankly, I am not interested in your opinions of BMW's, just as you are not interested in my opinions of RX-7's. The bigger issue, which I sure hope you are not trying to dodge, is my desire to see if this process has been on the up & up. And I am by no means alone.



Thanks for the background. I didn't realize Corporate Turnaround Consultants had such a sense of humor to sign up as Harry Balszac.
All of this frustration and uproar over 1 dyno sheet? One? That's it? And he, what, lost 19rwhp? If someone told me we'll take 19rwhp or add 300lbs you bet your ass I'd take the 19rwhp loss. I don't see how that dyno sheet proves/disproves anything. It's a bad datapoint to base an argument on being that the baseline wasn't a good sample to begin with. And I don't even see what's so bad about it. To me that restrictor is still a gift. You'd be much worse off with the weight.

s
[/b]

LOL...good one, Steve. Yes, even us boring corporate types sometimes exhibit senses of humor. Although I am not sure why you found it necessary to root out what I do for a living....or even found it necessary to earlier demand my real name. Smokescreen, anyone?

As for your other point: The SIR was sold to us as a done deal, that the SCCA did not feel needed any testing or proof of concept on an E36. It was also sold to us as not having ANY effect with engines making less than 200+hp. Both of these promises have turned out ot be bullschit, and now (as expected), the backpedaling and vendor-blaming has begun. Yes, I am upset about one dyno test. Bill has a Stickley motor, but no MoTeC, and he can't get even over 160hp.

And you are now doing what? Somehow trying to make that not seem bad? Steve, 160hp is so uncompetitive--whether in a BMW or an RX-7--as to be laughable.

Do you actually read what you post before you post it?

Come on...dig for more personal info on me...LOL.



Gentleman,

The ITAC members are doing a good job answering your questions and I'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'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]

Bob, will you release

1) all tests with all SIR sizes?

2) all transcripts of ITAC meeting in which Andy participated & this BMW SIR issue was discussed?

Thanks!

[dj10]

As I recall, we pushed it out with a spacer about 3", but it didn't resolve the issues. As time was limited, we mounted the AFM upstream and left it there for the rest of the runs. It will be interesting to hear of your results. What dyno type will you be using ?
[/b]

Jake, I was afraid that time might have hindered your testing since time was limited. I have Dyno Jet lined up to test on and the people seem knowledgable. Champ (my friend who owns C & G Performance), knows Dave Finch from his days racing GT3 National, will be talking to Dave. Hopefully I'll get some clarifications on proper placement.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, frankly, I am not interested in your opinions of BMW's, just as you are not interested in my opinions of RX-7's. The bigger issue, which I sure hope you are not trying to dodge, is my desire to see if this process has been on the up & up. And I am by no means alone.[/b]

In the absense of the transcripts, I have offered to tell you my position on any issue so that you can understand some things you don't. You don't want to know because the facts aren't what you care about. All you want to know is when I vote and when I abstain. I will tell you this: In 2005, there was no need for my vote, it was unanimous. In 2006, during the last con-call (Feb), I voted on the SIR issue - and I remain passionate about my vote. The ITAC was virtually split down the middle on the topic - and as such, had no official recommendation other than we were divided.

Another note on proceedure. The Advisory committies have a private web-board where all the incoming letters are organized and logged. We get a chance to read them and debate them, via computer, for up to a month before they actually hit our con-call agenda. Most issues are put to bed well before the 10 people get on the phone. Some are not.


As for your other point: The SIR was sold to us as a done deal, that the SCCA did not feel needed any testing or proof of concept on an E36. It was also sold to us as not having ANY effect with engines making less than 200+hp. Both of these promises have turned out ot be bullschit, and now (as expected), the backpedaling and vendor-blaming has begun. Yes, I am upset about one dyno test. Bill has a Stickley motor, but no MoTeC, and he can't get even over 160hp. [/b]

Not sure why you keep harping on this. Nobody has disputed the fact that some qualities of the SIR were not as advertised. Being upset at the dyno test is very short sighted. Are you telling all of us that 180whp is the max an ITS E36 is going to run? (Put on your straight face) I don't care whose name is attached to the motor, if it only makes 180, something is wrong, very wrong. Are you disputing this?

[Harry Balszac]

Andy, my last post was to Bob. I hope he does the right thing.

[DoubleXL240Z]

I have some questions!!! First, and most imprtantly, I'm not here to flame/stab/accuse/ convict etc. anyone of anything!! I've been around scca/hsr/svra/pca as a mech. and fabricator for about 6 years and racing in general since the 80s on a trans am team. And most (read all) of the nonsense i have read on this forum or the BW forum has been a real turnoff.
I believe the goal was approx. 160 to 165hp, I'm not sure on this. Maybe 180. The only released(so Far) info has a 181 hp motor detuned or limited to 161 hp by a SIR. It is my understanding that the concept of a SIR is to limit air thus limiting hp. An engine basically being an air pump, limit air= limit hp. Now I realize that the A/F mixture was off by a considerable margin on the dyno graph. But, proper tuning may bring back 5-10hp. Bringin us back to 170ish. This doesn't quite add up though. In theory, X amount of air= X HP, and Y amount of air=Y HP. So with that being the case logic would dictate a 200hp( just a number) engine would be limited to the same 170 area.
Why, than wouldn't a number of approx.190-195 be the goal of the SIR. If a 2680 lb. RX7(fully developed) is pushing the 183-185HP envelope wouldn't simple math dictate a 2850 lb. at the same tune level be expected to produce in the 195 area. The RX numbers are dyno sheets I have seen by the way. Maybe I'm missing something.
As far as my stake in this is the fact that I am/was in the process of buying a E36 for conversion to a racecar. Iam supposed to pick up the car this weekend.
I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but it does not addup.
Andy, I truly appreciate your work, and everybody's work on this. But, I think you can understand most everyone frustration on this, and you have acknowleged that.
Maybe the jokes I hear about The SCCA( sports car club of asia) from the svra and hsr crowd are not that far off.
Sorry about that I'm getting riled up. I'm out!!

[e36its]

Your math is good, except it's old numbers. That is what would have been done if the car were classed today with no prior knowledge of power out. Some cars make 20% more, some make 30% more, some exceed 35% more in IT trim. The 1st gen RX-7 in ITA exceeds 40% improvment! When numbers are known, they are placed in the process. This allows for a much more accurate weight setting.

The E36 can exceed 30% increases (about 201whp using a 18% loss factor if you are playing at home), so that is used.

189 * 1.3 * 12.9 = 3169

This is before consideration for the adders. Adders are considerations for traits that are significant vs. the rest of the class. The tranny ratios are perfect, the brakes are large (but that is mitigated in my mind by the weight at this point) and the torque numbers are off the charts. It is very reasonable to assume 3150-3200 is a fair weight given the process all the other cars have to go through.
[/b]
Thanks for the explanation. It isn't really material to the discussion of the BMW SIR, but has any consideration been given to publishing the full set of inputs used to get process results? I would be inclined to reverse engineer the numbers from the new adjusted weight using all other cars in IT that meet the process as data points. Given that there are now two variables in play (adders and the percentage HP gain multiplier) the working backwards through the process seems difficult in my tiny caveman mind.

tom

[steve s]

don't know why all the non mazdas guys are complaining.can't you read between the lines.
that's why there's bmwcca did you ever hear of mazda club ?????.
when you sell that bmw buy a mazda and continue winning with SCCA.
p.s. that's why i drive a mazda :happy204: :dead_horse:
this is too easy i'm sounding like those immature posters on this site !!!!

[Harry Balszac]

Do you mean to tell me that the ITAC is not in a position to share its own proceedings & deliberations with the great unwashed paying membership?

I guess Geo had it right: we may not be "entitiled" to them, eh?

Andy, frankly, I am not interested in your opinions of BMW's, just as you are not interested in my opinions of RX-7's. The bigger issue, which I sure hope you are not trying to dodge, is my desire to see if this process has been on the up & up. And I am by no means alone.
LOL...good one, Steve. Yes, even us boring corporate types sometimes exhibit senses of humor. Although I am not sure why you found it necessary to root out what I do for a living....or even found it necessary to earlier demand my real name. Smokescreen, anyone?

As for your other point: The SIR was sold to us as a done deal, that the SCCA did not feel needed any testing or proof of concept on an E36. It was also sold to us as not having ANY effect with engines making less than 200+hp. Both of these promises have turned out ot be bullschit, and now (as expected), the backpedaling and vendor-blaming has begun. Yes, I am upset about one dyno test. Bill has a Stickley motor, but no MoTeC, and he can't get even over 160hp.

And you are now doing what? Somehow trying to make that not seem bad? Steve, 160hp is so uncompetitive--whether in a BMW or an RX-7--as to be laughable.

Do you actually read what you post before you post it?

Come on...dig for more personal info on me...LOL.

Bob, will you release

1) all tests with all SIR sizes?

2) all transcripts of ITAC meeting in which Andy participated & this BMW SIR issue was discussed?

Thanks!
[/b]

What say you, Bob???

[Andy Bettencourt]

What say you, Bob???
[/b]

Bob does not frequent this site like the rest of us nerds.

Notice he joined in 2004 and that was his second post. If you care to request something, send it in to the CRB. [email protected] And don't be surprised when your request gets printed in Sportscar like all the rest.

AB

[stevel]

LOL...good one, Steve. Yes, even us boring corporate types sometimes exhibit senses of humor. Although I am not sure why you found it necessary to root out what I do for a living....or even found it necessary to earlier demand my real name. Smokescreen, anyone?
[/b]

Wow, do you always act like the world is against you? Smokescreen? Root out what you do for a living? No Dave. I just found it humorous is all. And not humorous as in laughing at you, but laughing with you. It wasn't meant as a shot to you at all, I just found it funny. Again, stop looking for something that isn't there.



Bill has a Stickley motor, but no MoTeC, and he can't get even over 160hp.

And you are now doing what? Somehow trying to make that not seem bad? Steve, 160hp is so uncompetitive--whether in a BMW or an RX-7--as to be laughable.
[/b]

Dave, I know you're a smart guy. Using that 160hp dyno as any sort of valid argument is BS and you know it. Yes, 160hp is uncompetitive. So is 180whp! Which is what it started with! He has a Stickley motor, with no MoTeC and can't get over 180whp to start with! Is it our fault he brought a motor that is subpar in the form it was tested? You've seemed to skip over the other point I mentioned. Would you rather lose 19hp or have 300lbs added? 160hp at 2850 or 180hp at 3150. Hmmmm, seems like a no brainer to me.




Do you actually read what you post before you post it?

[/b]

Dave, you can stop with the condescending attitude. We are all adults here, right?




Come on...dig for more personal info on me...LOL.

[/b]

Not what I was trying to do. Dave, if you have anything else you wanna say regarding my points, please PM me about it. I am trying to raise some valid points and you choose to ignore half of them and just argue the other half when it serves your argument. Ignoring the fact that he started with 180whp is a great example. Please, write your concerns in a formal letter to the CRB.

s

[Harry Balszac]

Mmm-kay, Steve. Whatever.

My point WRT the Stickley motor was obviously lost in translation, so here it is again:

The SIR was promised NOT to have ANY detrimental effect on motors not making (IIRC) 210hp unrestricted.

This has been proven a lie.

Bill's starting HP is irrelevant, except it proves the lie.

And, instead of scrapping this whole suspect process, and the resultant decision-du-jour, and starting over--which is what fair, rational, unbiased people would do--SCCA has chosen to bury its collective head in the sand & say "our way or the highway" while they blame Raetech for their own....performance.

I, frankly, don't care whether Bill got a good or bad motor. I do, however, care that he lost 20hp in a circumstance that ITAC & CRB promised would NOT happen.

Am I being more clear now?

[DoubleD]

Perhaps this is the $64,000 question:

It appears that the E36 would have been considered within the target ITS envelope had the SIR had no effect on HP and torque below the target. If, beyond reasonable doubt, it is shown that the SIR reduces HP and Torque at a given RPM below the target peak HP, is not the weight of 2850 too high? Surely the "adder" in the formula for torque must be adjusted...if the goal is parity, of course.

I suspect responses to this could be fun.

[lateapex911]

Mmm-kay, Steve. Whatever.

My point WRT the Stickley motor was obviously lost in translation, so here it is again:

The SIR was promised NOT to have ANY detrimental effect on motors not making (IIRC) 210hp unrestricted.[/b]
Uh, no. As the 'prosecuter' in this case (that's what you're acting like, and as if a President commited treason, LOL) it's your job to provide proof of your claims. I don't have, nor wish to waste my life searching through old quotes to set you straight. But if you're going to spout this stuff, be accurate at least.
Fact: 210? 210what??? crank? wheel? Since we have been discusssing wheel here I'll go with that. The sum of our statements is that we said we were told (like I am a flow dynamics engineer and have a ProE or whatever other flow modeling work station, LOL) that the SIR wouldn't affect torque or HP below it's design level. Nobody ever stated that the design level was 210. Why bother? That's at or just over where the top dogs are now....no need to restrict everyone to power nobody is making, right?




And, instead of scrapping this whole suspect process, and the resultant decision-du-jour and starting over--which is what fair, rational, unbiased people would do--SCCA has chosen to bury its collective head in the sand & say "our way or the highway" while they blame Raetech for their own....performance.

I, frankly, don't care whether Bill got a good or bad motor. I do, however, care that he lost 20hp in a circumstance that ITAC & CRB promised would NOT happen.

Am I being more clear now?
[/b]

So, would you rather he, and all the BMW guys who have poor running motors, or who haven't made improvements to reach the higher HP levels that are possible, get a freebie? Why are the BMW drivers more entitled than the rest of the IT category? Why aren't the guys who can't afford to build a top NX2000 or Neon motor entitled to a freebie??

Those are the questions I get in my PM....from guys who don't want to get abused by posting in this thread.

Nobody has denied that the SIR has not lived up to all it's "selling points". But there are plenty of wise people here who feel that the "selling points" (ie, the supposed transparency to non built motors) wasn't a good thing at all! It was a huge detractor!

As it sits, THAT is what all the complaining has been about here.(And a bunch of procedural stuff, I'll get to that later)

The complaint isn't that 20 hp is trimmed of the top runners. The complain is that 19hp has been trimmed off a car that isn't broken in and was running deangerously lean.

I guarantee you that the guys in ITA who just bolted in over 100 pounds....and haven't even begun to build their CRXs or 240 SX's are looking at that and saying "SO?".

[buldogge]

Regardless of any drama you guys are engaging in...THIS below is the crux of the problem/issue summarized.

100% correct and valid.

Unfortunately, as already stated the NEW answer is...tough shit...go run BMWCCA.

I for one don't want to run BMWCCA...zero desire.

However, I don't fell like being castrated either. Give me a SIR that caps rwhp at 185-190rwhp as per the "formula" and as promised and I will not "whine" ONE BIT.

If the product didn't work as advertised then come up with a new/different/altered solution...

...not simply OH WELL!!!

Please...seriously.




Mmm-kay, Steve. Whatever.

My point WRT the Stickley motor was obviously lost in translation, so here it is again:

The SIR was promised NOT to have ANY detrimental effect on motors not making (IIRC) 210hp unrestricted.

This has been proven a lie.

Bill's starting HP is irrelevant, except it proves the lie.

And, instead of scrapping this whole suspect process, and the resultant decision-du-jour, and starting over--which is what fair, rational, unbiased people would do--SCCA has chosen to bury its collective head in the sand & say "our way or the highway" while they blame Raetech for their own....performance.

I, frankly, don't care whether Bill got a good or bad motor. I do, however, care that he lost 20hp in a circumstance that ITAC & CRB promised would NOT happen.

Am I being more clear now?
[/b]

[Andy Bettencourt]

The SIR was promised NOT to have ANY detrimental effect on motors not making (IIRC) 210hp unrestricted.

This has been proven a lie.[/b]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. A lie is when someone knowingly deceives you. That is NOT what happened. A description of the technology was given and assurances were handed out based on info from the expert on the technology. Some aspects of the technology didn't translate to a car with low compression, EFI, HAF and a TB. Was it a mistake to assign this handicap without testing? Yes. You have been educated on that now a few times. You get it?


Bill's starting HP is irrelevant, except it proves the lie.[/b]

You don't really mean LIE, do you?


And, instead of scrapping this whole suspect process, and the resultant decision-du-jour, and starting over--which is what fair, rational, unbiased people would do--[/b]

While I do not know how the CRB voted, I can tell you that some on the ITAC felt the same way.


I, frankly, don't care whether Bill got a good or bad motor. I do, however, care that he lost 20hp in a circumstance that ITAC & CRB promised would NOT happen.

Am I being more clear now? [/b]

So tell me how this would be different had the E36 gotten an appropriately-sized flat-plate in 2005? Those who were low on power to begin with would suffer the same fate. Does it suck? Yes. But you can't be competitive without having the best stuff. At 2850, he is only 20whp off - at 3200 (and unrestricted), he is 30whp off!

You want to know what the only net loss of the effect on underprepped engine is? It's the absence of a free ride for guys who don't want to - or haven't yet spend the money to develop to the limit of the rules. When another BMW driver posted the following, many took offense to the desire for that free ride. Nobody else can run at the front without full development...do I feel for guys who may have to go from 180 to 160? Yes, but you can't make a class's-worth of decision based on the underprepared.


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

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

[DoubleD]

The SIR was promised NOT to have ANY detrimental effect on motors not making (IIRC) 210hp unrestricted.

This has been proven a lie.

Bill's starting HP is irrelevant, except it proves the lie.

[/b]

I don't think they lied, I think they didn't know better. Subtle but important difference which has no bearing on the end result.

[dj10]

Mmm-kay, Steve. Whatever.

My point WRT the Stickley motor was obviously lost in translation, so here it is again:

The SIR was promised NOT to have ANY detrimental effect on motors not making (IIRC) 210hp unrestricted.

This has been proven a lie.

Bill's starting HP is irrelevant, except it proves the lie.

And, instead of scrapping this whole suspect process, and the resultant decision-du-jour, and starting over--which is what fair, rational, unbiased people would do--SCCA has chosen to bury its collective head in the sand & say "our way or the highway" while they blame Raetech for their own....performance.

I, frankly, don't care whether Bill got a good or bad motor. I do, however, care that he lost 20hp in a circumstance that ITAC & CRB promised would NOT happen.
[/b]

Harry/ Dave/ whoever, :)

The SIR was promised NOT to have ANY detrimental effect on motors not making (IIRC) 210hp unrestricted

From what I heard in the begining I always believed it was an assumption the the SIR would not effect the lower output engines. It was only about a month ago I learned that this was not the case and in fact just like any other adjustment, be it a FPR or weight or SIR would as a matter of fact effect every engine. I don't believe in a conspiracy theory of lies......sorry.

From your status, how will this effect your ITS BMW? Have you tested the 29 mm SIR on your car? I'd really like to know how you mounted your SIR and the before and after effects on your E36 325. Is your car a vanos or not?

I'd be happy to pass anything along that I find when I start testing.
Best of luck racing this year, where ever.
dj

[seckerich]

Gentleman,

The ITAC members are doing a good job answering your questions and I'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'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]
Thanks for taking the time to clear that up. Good to see the CRB stand behind THEIR decision-even if we disagree.

[lateapex911]

What say you, Bob???
[/b]

Bob says, "I have a job, and I owe it to my clients to spend my time actually working for them".

OK, maybe that's not what he says, but the bottom line is that he was nice enough to post here, and has promised more detail down the road, so be polite and wait like the rest of us.

A note on procedural stuff.

I am on the ITAC. It's an appointed position. We work for, or should I say, report to, the CRB, and abide by the CRBs rules and doctrines. The CRB works for and reports to the BoD, and follows their rules and guidelines. The BoD works for you, and me, the "great unwashed membership".

When I work for the ITAC, I try to look at the big picture, the greater philosophy, and the good of the category in my dealings. The CRB oversees our category as it relates to itself, and the greater club racing scene.

My 'job' is to advise. That's it. I research, I discuss with people I respect, I talk to the members...we are seen as one of the most open and progressive Ad Hoc committees in the SCCA. But the bottom line is that we advise.

Non of us have any right to release any minutes or transcripts or any information dealing with our jobs, unless directed to by the CRB. Who would take that order from the BoD.

What do you think Bob is going to do, stop his day, call an emergency CRB meeting, get the other members to agree that you deserve all the info you request now, call an emergency BoD meeting, convince them of the same, then compile and release the info you desire???

Oh...he volunteers his time. Like I do, and Andy, the entire CRB, and the BoD.

I appreciate you wanting information. What I don't apreciate is a sniping and sarcastic prodding when you know it's unreasonable.

Write an official request, and you will get an official response.

[Harry Balszac]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. A lie is when someone knowingly deceives you. That is NOT what happened. A description of the technology was given and assurances were handed out based on info from the expert on the technology. Some aspects of the technology didn't translate to a car with low compression, EFI, HAF and a TB. Was it a mistake to assign this handicap without testing? Yes. You have been educated on that now a few times. You get it? [/b]


Andy, you guys took the word of a vendor at 100% face value, did NO independent testing, and then poo-pooed any & all folks who asked why not...then promised us it would work & to trust you guys. While I assume no malicious intent, this IS a lie.


You don't really mean LIE, do you?
While I do not know how the CRB voted, I can tell you that some on the ITAC felt the same way. [/b]

Yes, see above.




So tell me how this would be different had the E36 gotten an appropriately-sized flat-plate in 2005? Those who were low on power to begin with would suffer the same fate. Does it suck? Yes. But you can't be competitive without having the best stuff. At 2850, he is only 20whp off - at 3200 (and unrestricted), he is 30whp off! [/b]

I cannot answer that what-if, Andy. All I know is that you guys promised it would have NO negative effect on lower-power motors, and poo-pooed those who doubted the validity of this promise.


You want to know what the only net loss of the effect on underprepped engine is? It's the absence of a free ride for guys who don't want to - or haven't yet spend the money to develop to the limit of the rules. When another BMW driver posted the following, many took offense to the desire for that free ride. Nobody else can run at the front without full development...do I feel for guys who may have to go from 180 to 160? Yes, but you can't make a class's-worth of decision based on the underprepared.
[/b]

BULLSHIT, Andy. You guys promised it would ONLY affect the top-prepared motors, and poo-pooed those of us who questioned this promise. Now, you are seemingly engaged in flank-speed backpedaling & blaming the victim.

[lateapex911]

However, I don't fell like being castrated either. Give me a SIR that caps rwhp at 185-190rwhp as per the "formula" and as promised and I will not "whine" ONE BIT.


Please...seriously.
[/b]


But.....how do you know that your full tilt motor WON't make 185 RWHP???

Again, this entire mess is about how a couple guys feel robbed, and that the underprepared acrs are not given a freebie.

That they are entitled to better treatment than any other car, because the organizers were foolish enough to try to make the racing better....

WHY are the guys below the curve any more entitled than me or any other non E36 driver????

[dj10]

Gentleman,
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]

I would like anyone from the ITAC to answer 1 question. What would happen if the enacted 29 mm SIR is found to make the BMW's uncompetive? I don't mean to muddy the water any more than it is but I believe everyone needs to know this.
Thanks

[Harry Balszac]

Bob says, "I have a job, and I owe it to my clients to spend my time actually working for them".

OK, maybe that's not what he says, but the bottom line is that he was nice enough to post here, and has promised more detail down the road, so be polite and wait like the rest of us.

A note on procedural stuff.

I am on the ITAC. It's an appointed position. We work for, or should I say, report to, the CRB, and abide by the CRBs rules and doctrines. The CRB works for and reports to the BoD, and follows their rules and guidelines. The BoD works for you, and me, the "great unwashed membership".

When I work for the ITAC, I try to look at the big picture, the greater philosophy, and the good of the category in my dealings. The CRB oversees our category as it relates to itself, and the greater club racing scene.

My 'job' is to advise. That's it. I research, I discuss with people I respect, I talk to the members...we are seen as one of the most open and progressive Ad Hoc committees in the SCCA. But the bottom line is that we advise.

Non of us have any right to release any minutes or transcripts or any information dealing with our jobs, unless directed to by the CRB. Who would take that order from the BoD.

What do you think Bob is going to do, stop his day, call an emergency CRB meeting, get the other members to agree that you deserve all the info you request now, call an emergency BoD meeting, convince them of the same, then compile and release the info you desire???

Oh...he volunteers his time. Like I do, and Andy, the entire CRB, and the BoD.

I appreciate you wanting information. What I don't apreciate is a sniping and sarcastic prodding when you know it's unreasonable.

Write an official request, and you will get an official response.
[/b]

Jake, I was nothing but polite to Bob. Are you suggesting otherwise?

And, I have made the official request.

[lateapex911]

I would like anyone from the ITAC to answer 1 question. What would happen if the enacted 29 mm SIR is found to make the BMW's uncompetive? I don't mean to muddy the water any more than it is but I believe everyone needs to know this.
Thanks
[/b]

Since we can all see what happens when we try to be up front and communicative, I will try to answer this in the best way, but as I am not the boss, I can not PROMISE ANYTHING....

(Nor have I in the past, but thats another story)

In my discussions with CRB members, they have indicated along these lines.."If it's wrong, we'll fix it"
(My response, at the time was: "I don't want it wrong. This is the last time I want to be adjusting this car, enough is enough. Whatever we do, it needs to be right")

Now, you said "uncompetitive".

I would respond by stating that if emprical evidence comes to light that is scientifically sound, that shows the car is not meeting the design goal, then the situation would be looked at, and if the offset is great enough, a change will be made.

I think Bob stated it well.

[Joe Harlan]

I would like anyone from the ITAC to answer 1 question. What would happen if the enacted 29 mm SIR is found to make the BMW's uncompetive? I don't mean to muddy the water any more than it is but I believe everyone needs to know this.
Thanks
[/b]
DJ, To be honest with you I am convinced it is not enough. The 27 was well inside the target range and a 29 will not restrict the car to the point that it fits the formula. One only has to look at the one Dyno sheet posted here to see a poorly tuned car was tested to be able to present a failure by those that don't like the technology. Look closely at the jagged dyno graph and compare it to the fuel curve. Looks like the knock sensor was doing its job not to blow this thing up. Put some fuel in that motor and it's a whole new ball game.
So My opinion is the Bimmer caught a break and we will still see them at the pointy end of the front.

[JamesB]

Jake, I was nothing but polite to Bob. Are you suggesting otherwise?

And, I have made the official request.
[/b]

Truethfully you where rude.

All timestamps are server time:

8:04am - Bob posts
8:37am - you state your request on a public forum without mention use of proper official channels.
10:58am - you post agian showing your impatience due to lack of immediate response to your public request.

Even I find that offensive. So maybe some patience is due don't you think?

[Harry Balszac]

Truethfully you where rude.

All timestamps are server time:

8:04am - Bob posts
8:37am - you state your request on a public forum without mention use of proper official channels.
10:58am - you post agian showing your impatience due to lack of immediate response to your public request.

Even I find that offensive. So maybe some patience is due don't you think?
[/b]


HAHAHAHAHA!1 Funniest post of the day!

let me see if I understand what you are saying here: Bob posts on this public forum (not a "proper official channel" LOL at the term). I respond & ask him for more information, and then follow up.

And this is rude? It offended you?

Are you joking here? Do you not see how absurd that suggestion is? Do you usually have an abnormally thin skin?

Let me be blunt: if this is not the forum to discuss this, then Bob should not have posted here. But he did, and my response was anything but rude.

If it offended you, perhaps you need to man up and grow some sack. A thicker skin would serve you well.

[e36its]

The complain is that 19hp has been trimmed off a car that isn't broken in and was running deangerously lean.
[/b]
Jake --

I might be displaying my ignorance here (won't be the first time), but looking at the graphs posted for the 180 hp unrestricted / 161 hp restricted motor, don't the air fuel ratios look like they're right around stoich (14.7)? On the unrestricted dyno chart:

the motor started out around 15:1 at 2800 rpm
stayed there until around 3800 rpm
kicked up to above 15:1 from 3800 to 4000 rpm
descended back down below 15:1 from there to 5200 rpm
kicked up to 15:1 at 5200 rpm or so
finally descended to 14:1 as it got up to 7k rpm

Am I reading that wrong? I'm not saying this dyno chart is the end-all be-all of tests that proves that you all hate the E36 and by association, me... I'm just trying to parse the bit about the A/F.

Uninformed comment: The curve sure seems awfully bumpy up there near the top...


I guarantee you that the guys in ITA who just bolted in over 100 pounds....and haven't even begun to build their CRXs or 240 SX's are looking at that and saying "SO?".[/b]
I can see that, Jake -- the difference, IMHO, is that weight is easy to install and its impacts are fairly well known. It sucks, sure... but you know what it's going to do.

tom

[dj10]

DJ, To be honest with you I am convinced it is not enough. The 27 was well inside the target range and a 29 will not restrict the car to the point that it fits the formula. One only has to look at the one Dyno sheet posted here to see a poorly tuned car was tested to be able to present a failure by those that don't like the technology. Look closely at the jagged dyno graph and compare it to the fuel curve. Looks like the knock sensor was doing its job not to blow this thing up. Put some fuel in that motor and it's a whole new ball game.
So My opinion is the Bimmer caught a break and we will still see them at the pointy end of the front. [/b]
Joe, I'll be testing a freshly built 2.5 L engine within the next 3 weeks and I have a adjust. fuel reg. There were a lot of ? with that engine. If Dave Finch DID say to mount the SIR in front of the AFM?? Why hasn't any got it to work?

[seckerich]

[

I cannot answer that what-if, Andy. All I know is that you guys promised it would have NO negative effect on lower-power motors, and poo-pooed those who doubted the validity of this promise.
BULLSHIT, Andy. You guys promised it would ONLY affect the top-prepared motors, and poo-pooed those of us who questioned this promise. Now, you are seemingly engaged in flank-speed backpedaling & blaming the victim.
[/quote]
And this sums up the reason I feel the way I do about the BMW. You still think your under-prepped, Under developed mid pack car in any other brand should still be a front runner with a SIR in place. You have no idea if the motors you say lost this power can actually tune back to the 180 now do you?? A honda gets classified with and without Vtec at much different weights but somebody managed to slip VANOS by past CRB when the attitude was much different about IT. Yet you feel entitled to keep this advantage without the work and money every other brand and car has to spend. Come back when you have real data and facts to show how your poor car was affected--until then you seem to really resemble your screen name more and more because you have been somewhat of a Prick since your first post.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, I'll be testing a freshly built 2.5 L engine within the next 3 weeks and I have a adjust. fuel reg. There were a lot of ? with that engine. If Dave Finch DID say to mount the SIR in front of the AFM?? Why hasn't any got it to work?
[/b]

In front? Between the MAF and the TB is where this thing needs to go. I don't think you can get it far enough away from the the MAF to no screw up the signal. On a side note DJ you are welcome to Email me a phone number and any help or advice I can offer is yours for the asking.

[Harry Balszac]

And this sums up the reason I feel the way I do about the BMW. You still think your under-prepped, Under developed mid pack car in any other brand should still be a front runner with a SIR in place. You have no idea if the motors you say lost this power can actually tune back to the 180 now do you?? A honda gets classified with and without Vtec at much different weights but somebody managed to slip VANOS by past CRB when the attitude was much different about IT. Yet you feel entitled to keep this advantage without the work and money every other brand and car has to spend. Come back when you have real data and facts to show how your poor car was affected--until then you seem to really resemble your screen name more and more because you have been somewhat of a Prick since your first post.
[/b]


Steve, you could not be more wrong.

I have never, EVER said that ANY car should have an unfair advantage.

It amazes me how many people here seem to lack reading comprehension.

Once again: the SIR was PROMISED to NOT have ANY negative performance effect for lower-power motors. All those who questioned this promise were derided & poo-pooed, both here & on other forums.

Now, it appears this promise was total BS. A 180hp car delivered 161hp with the SIR, a situation which was PROMISED to us would NOT happen. The above is a REAL FACT.

And all you can do is backpedal & blame the victim. And change the subject. No matter how many times I post this very clear point, the response is always a dodge or a redirect. Very telling.

These sentences say it all about you, Steve: "Come back when you have real data and facts to show how your poor car was affected--until then you seem to really resemble your screen name more and more because you have been somewhat of a Prick since your first post."

Yeah...whatever you say, Steve. Nice personal attack to try to cloud the real issue.

This is perfect: we have one person who thinks he is not sure we, the Great Unwashed Racers, are "entitled" to testing data for other SIR sizes. We have one person directly involved in this SIR process who does not think transcripts of ITCA meetings discussing this issue are "needed" by us, the Great Unwashed Racers. We have severl people who are more concerned with my real name, my occupation, and how many posts I have, than anything else. And we have at least one person (you) who prefers personal attacks instead of dealing with the real issues.

[lateapex911]

Jake, I was nothing but polite to Bob. Are you suggesting otherwise?

And, I have made the official request.
[/b]
I would say that "rude" is a relative term. But repeated posting with the last one being: "What say you, Bob???" an hour and twenty minutes after your intitial request is not what I would define as "Anything but polite". Maybe I too need a thicker skin. (Read that as sarcastic)

[seckerich]

Steve, you could not be more wrong.

I have never, EVER said that ANY car should have an unfair advantage.

It amazes me how many people here seem to lack reading comprehension.

Once again: the SIR was PROMISED to NOT have ANY negative performance effect for lower-power motors. All those who questioned this promise were derided & poo-pooed, both here & on other forums.

Now, it appears this promise was total BS. A 180hp car delivered 161hp with the SIR, a situation which was PROMISED to us would NOT happen. The above is a REAL FACT.

And all you can do is backpedal & blame the victim. And change the subject. No matter how many times I post this very clear point, the response is always a dodge or a redirect. Very telling.

These sentences say it all about you, Steve: "Come back when you have real data and facts to show how your poor car was affected--until then you seem to really resemble your screen name more and more because you have been somewhat of a Prick since your first post."

Yeah...whatever you say, Steve. Nice personal attack to try to cloud the real issue.

This is perfect: we have one person who thinks he is not sure we, the Great Unwashed Racers, are "entitled" to testing data for other SIR sizes. We have one person directly involved in this SIR process who does not think transcripts of ITCA meetings discussing this issue are "needed" by us, the Great Unwashed Racers. We have severl people who are more concerned with my real name, my occupation, and how many posts I have, than anything else. And we have at least one person (you) who prefers personal attacks instead of dealing with the real issues.
[/b]
Real issue is that you never should, nor should you now be ENTITLED to have the same HP in an underdeveloped motor. The fact you were ever sold that BS is the problem.

[Bill Miller]

Mmm-kay, Steve. Whatever.

My point WRT the Stickley motor was obviously lost in translation, so here it is again:

The SIR was promised NOT to have ANY detrimental effect on motors not making (IIRC) 210hp unrestricted.

This has been proven a lie.

Bill's starting HP is irrelevant, except it proves the lie.

And, instead of scrapping this whole suspect process, and the resultant decision-du-jour, and starting over--which is what fair, rational, unbiased people would do--SCCA has chosen to bury its collective head in the sand & say "our way or the highway" while they blame Raetech for their own....performance.

I, frankly, don't care whether Bill got a good or bad motor. I do, however, care that he lost 20hp in a circumstance that ITAC & CRB promised would NOT happen.

Am I being more clear now?
[/b]


So Ball Sack, just so we understand your position, you think it ok to have a less than full-tilt motor program that can make as much power as a full-tilt version w/ a restrictor? I've had issue w/ the claim that the SIR would only lop power off the top of the most developed motors, yet have no impact on ones that weren't developed to make more than the SIR-limit hp. I was skeptical that it would actually work that way, and I thought it BS that you let people still be able to run at the front w/o a full-tilt effort.

If you're all caught up in the fact that the claim about the SIR was wrong, maybe you'll be writing a letter to the CRB to have them throw the SIR out and put 300# in the car instead. You seem so concerned that the E36 has been singled out, I would expect you to fully support treating the car the same way every other IT car is treated, which is to run at the process-specified weight.

If you're looking for a pound of flesh because incorrect claims were made about how the SIR would perform, you should be looking at David Finch, Raetech, and the CRB.

What's funny, is that you don't understand why someone that hides behind a bogus screen name, and demands people provide him w/ transcripts and information, doesn't get taken seriously.

[JamesB]

HAHAHAHAHA!1 Funniest post of the day!

let me see if I understand what you are saying here: Bob posts on this public forum (not a "proper official channel" LOL at the term). I respond & ask him for more information, and then follow up.

And this is rude? It offended you?

Are you joking here? Do you not see how absurd that suggestion is? Do you usually have an abnormally thin skin?

Let me be blunt: if this is not the forum to discuss this, then Bob should not have posted here. But he did, and my response was anything but rude.

If it offended you, perhaps you need to man up and grow some sack. A thicker skin would serve you well.
[/b]

You wont read the whole response but let me get this out anyway as I need something to consume my lunch hour.

He posted a closed statement. That the decision was made, and results will be published.

You go and ask for meeting minutes and all of the test results not just the results of the chosen SIR size. Understandable request, but one that I would never expect to see a public response on immediatly or outside of standard CRB proceedure and practice. I don't fault you for your request but lets face it, a public board request wont get you everything your seeking and even you know it.

And THEN you get rude/offensive. A matter of hours later you post in a way that can only be read and impatience that this information did not exit the floodgates and flow into the thread.

But what do you do, you reply with personal attacts on me for pointing out your impatience. You go on telling me to grow a pair and thicker skin. Thank you, I never got such a great laugh on a reply to me in ages. You don't know 1 thing about me other then my name and last initial. But wait a minute, you prefer to hide all of that. You are the classic online badger, you attack anyone who disagrees with you in any way. Enjoy your game, im done with you.

[Harry Balszac]

Hey, Billy Goat, I have posted my real name several times. Why on earth is it even remotely relevant?

Your bitterness is evident. Seek help--it'll eat you up.

I do not blame Raetech. They are trying to sell product. I blame SCCA for taking their marketing spiel without ANY sort of due diligence, and then crapping all over those of us (including yourself, it seems) who did not believe the claims.

And, in that light, I believe the entire process is flawed from start to finish. My position, which I have advocated to CRB, is to trash-can the decision & start over wiht REAL data, REAL transparancy, and REAL avoidance of any and all conflicts of interest.

James, I am sorry: I was not aware that slight impatience equated to "rude/offensive" behavior. You & I apparently have different definitions of the latter. :wacko:

As for this claim: "You are the classic online badger, you attack anyone who disagrees with you in any way"? Sorry, James, but this is simply not true. Rather the opposite---I have been repeatedly attacked for raising legitimate questions about this entire process.

[seckerich]

Hey, Billy Goat, I have posted my real name several times. Why on earth is it even remotely relevant?

Your bitterness is evident. Seek help--it'll eat you up.

I do not blame Raetech. They are trying to sell product. I blame SCCA for taking their marketing spiel without ANY sort of due diligence, and then crapping all over those of us (including yourself, it seems) who did not believe the claims.

And, in that light, I believe the entire process is flawed from start to finish. My position, which I have advocated to CRB, is to trash-can the decision & start over wiht REAL data, REAL transparancy, and REAL avoidance of any and all conflicts of interest.

James, I am sorry: I was not aware that slight impatience equated to "rude/offensive" behavior. You & I apparently have different definitions of the latter. :wacko:
[/b]
Then try one post that does not call names, accuse someone of something, or just again be a jerk (Billygoat?) and you might even get some real responses. Try starting over with a little class.

[Joe Harlan]

Hey, Billy Goat, I have posted my real name several times. Why on earth is it even remotely relevant?

Your bitterness is evident. Seek help--it'll eat you up.

I do not blame Raetech. They are trying to sell product. I blame SCCA for taking their marketing spiel without ANY sort of due diligence, and then crapping all over those of us (including yourself, it seems) who did not believe the claims.

And, in that light, I believe the entire process is flawed from start to finish. My position, which I have advocated to CRB, is to trash-can the decision & start over wiht REAL data, REAL transparancy, and REAL avoidance of any and all conflicts of interest.

James, I am sorry: I was not aware that slight impatience equated to "rude/offensive" behavior. You & I apparently have different definitions of the latter. :wacko:
[/b]

So Dave Scott , Same Dave Scott driving for anchor racing?

[Bill Miller]

Hey, Billy Goat, I have posted my real name several times. Why on earth is it even remotely relevant?[/b]
Harry (can I call you Sack for short?), that's pretty funny. I'll get a good laugh out of that one for a while.


Your bitterness is evident. Seek help--it'll eat you up.
[/b]

You're the one that seems fixated on getting your pound of flesh


I do not blame Raetech. They are trying to sell product. I blame SCCA for taking their marketing spiel without ANY sort of due diligence, and then crapping all over those of us (including yourself, it seems) who did not believe the claims.[/b]

Probably the single most intelligent thing you've posted to date. I couldn't agree w/ you more. That being said, your anger at the ITAC is mis-directed.


And, in that light, I believe the entire process is flawed from start to finish. My position, which I have advocated to CRB, is to trash-can the decision & start over wiht REAL data, REAL transparancy, and REAL avoidance of any and all conflicts of interest.[/b]

So I expect to be reading your letter requesting that the SIR be scraped and the lead added.



James, I am sorry: I was not aware that slight impatience equated to "rude/offensive" behavior. You & I apparently have different definitions of the latter. :wacko:
[/b]


Let me guess, you're an only child.

[lateapex911]

......You are the classic online badger, ......[/b]


James, that's great! The perfect term. I'll have to remember that.


A general comment...

I have problems with some of the terms being tossed about. Like "We were sold" and "we were promised"...

"Sold"??? Funny, what benefit have I gotten from the sale? I see no profit in any kind. Actually, it has cost me nearly a thousand dollars in lost revenue to attend the tests, and cash from my pocket to drive the 6 hours to and from the tests. Sold? I did no selling, and really, what really took place??? Because you were "sold" something, you then gave permission to spec the SIR? The CRB did what they felt was right, regardless of you giving permission, or being sold anything. Please..."sold"??

And "promise", if Andy or George or Darin or I was asked, "Do you promise that this thing won't affect any car in any way under XX hp", would we say "Yes, I promise..."??? NO..of course not!!!! I always try to make my statements with a "I have been told...." or a "From what I understand...." in front of them....which is NOT a promise. And sorry, to accept such comments from a guy like Andy, who works in sales, or me who designs and builds, is really lack of due diligence on the accepter..we are clearly not CFD guys!

But really, WHY is it such a big deal? WHY is THIS car, and why does THIS bunch of complaining posters feel they are entitled to be angry that this car isn't getting preferential treatment????

(Please read my words to exclude the posters and BMW owners who are not making such statements and complaints....my comments are NOT directed at you)


Whrere's Greg Amy?? he should throw a post in here. A little unbiased commentary would be a good thing I think.

[Andy Bettencourt]

While the presentation from Mr. Scott has been amusing, we do have to make sure this error gets corrected, and that is what is happening. So, let's start from scratch. Let's forget what was specificed from Raetech, what was handed down by the CRB, and what was supported and defended by the ITAC. I do want to say that anyone who was told to 'go do the research' on the technology - should have. And what they would have found would have been the SAME EXACT thing we were told from the beginning. Only testing could have proved it wrong - it did - we admit there was a mistake made and the CRB is moving forward.

So...the SIR technology is what it is. Let's move forward from this post. I would like DoubleD, Mr. Scott and anyone else to weigh in. Knowing what you know about the options:

SIR's: Restrict underprepped engines, retain 2850 and drivability
FPR's: Restrict unerprepped engines, retain 2850 and lose drivability. Would have to by a spec setup and install it unmodified.
Weight: Engines go unrestricted, car uses more tires and brakes, treated same as all cars in IT

These are the facts as we know them now. What do you think is the best thing for IT?

AB

[Harry Balszac]

Then try one post that does not call names, accuse someone of something, or just again be a jerk (Billygoat?) and you might even get some real responses. Try starting over with a little class.
[/b]


Steve, I started with class. I was shat upon for, among other things, not posting my real name & my # of posts.

You are sadly one-sided in your outrage. And still, the real issues I have raised remain ignored. Ironic that I keep trying to bring the conversation back to them, and I keep getting attacked, isn't it?

Bill, I am honestly glad we see some common ground. I am also glad you saw the humor in our mutual name-joking.

I want no pound of flesh, Bill. However, I do believe accountability is sorely lacking in this situation. All I see is repeated wagon-circling & attack-the-messenger(s). Yes, you will see my letter. And no, I am not an only child. Next?

Joe, you are correct--that's me. Do we know each other? Is my affiliation with Anchor in any way relevant?

LateApex, here is why this is such a "big deal": this rule change (first 27mm, now 29mm), due in 5 weeks, costs major $$$ for the BMW ITSers. When it is unproven, ill-conceived, and based on bullshit, being required to spend big bucks for crap is going to be...um...unpopular.

[NewBie99]

So Dave Scott , Same Dave Scott driving for anchor racing?[/b]

Yee gods, if I looked like this I'd be acting like a spoiled brat too:

Hey, they tell me that "only steers and queers come from Texas...and you don't much look like a steer to me so that kinda narrows it down..."

Got a joke for you: What's the difference between a BMW and a porcupine? The pricks are on the OUTSIDE of a porcupine!!

This is fun...even for my first post...

[Harry Balszac]

Wow. A picture of my ugly mug, and homosexual jokes about my state of residence, as well as junior high jokes about (insert favorite imported luxury/sports car brand name here).

Yeah....I am sure the bad guy here, aren't I?

This speaks volumes about the vaildity of some of the points I and others are raising when this is the best you guys can come up with in response.

Over-compensate much, boys? Got something to hide? LOL.

Gee, New Guy, why won't you use your real name, rather than hiding behind your just-created alias?

Priceless immaturity.

[benspeed]

This is the most pathetic thread ever. The lowest of the low - posting a photo of somebody using a bogus account and slandering?

I'm pulling a Greg Amy and forgetting this site for awhile - maybe the children with the short attention spans will leave and the site will become appropriate for adults again.

[JamesB]

Please dont group the active board memebers with him, he registered in Feb 2006 and has a post count of 1!?!? Not what I would say is one of the active discussing memebers of this board.

[lateapex911]

Steve, I started with class. [/b]
Starting off calling yourself a name that reads "Hairy Ballsack" might be 'class' in a trailer park...but it doesn't show respect or integrity to me. I would have erred on the conservative side...but clearly you chose what you chose for reasons. We will differ on this. I think others will too.



.... Ironic that I keep trying to bring the conversation back to them, and I keep getting attacked, isn't it?
[/b]
No, your comments have been responded to ...again and again...but they differ from your opinion.


Yes, you will see my letter. [/b]

Actually, Bill won't see it, unless it is published in Sportscar. Bill is an involved participant, but not a member of the ITAC or CRB or BoD.


LateApex, here is why this is such a "big deal": this rule change (first 27mm, now 29mm), due in 5 weeks, costs major $$$ for the BMW ITSers. When it is unproven, ill-conceived, and based on bullshit, being required to spend big bucks for crap is going to be...um...unpopular.
[/b]


Ahhhhhhhhh.. NOW we're getting somehwere.

Agreed, the timing sucks and the money does too, but we've been down this road before...months ago. As a member of the ITAC I requested that this E36 situation be resolved last year, and have requested due haste at every juncture since then. The CRB has put a lot of time and money into it as well. This has seen more atttention than most other issues, and the testing has been unprecedented. I know you don't care, and that it's the bottom line that you care about.

Well, the bottom line here is that you have no PROOF that it is unproven, ill conceived and based on BS. If you do...please present it. (And stating that the underprepared cars are affected and aren't getting the freebie they were "promised", doesn't hold water in the discussion of wheter or not the SIR will result in a car that fits the process)

And the absence of proof and data sheets that show the validity of the procedure is NOT proof that any of your above statements are true.

[Harry Balszac]

Aw, geez, Jake.

First of all, pardon the hell out of me for trying to inject a little bit of humor into this stuff with the user name I chose. If you are going to make issue with that, have a field day. You will get no further responses from me on that, because it is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

Second, sorry but I am not inclined to disprove a negative just for your amusement. Public promises were made, public derision was ladled thickly upon those who questioned and/or doubted, and now further public derision is being ladled upon those who want some accountability for this debacle, instead of blaming Raetech and Bill Kim. People are being forced to either spend huge sums for technology that, so far, has proven NOT to perform as advertised by the rulemakers, or to leave ITS.

And all you have is circular arguments trying to redefine what "is" is?

That, and some of the other crap that this thread has seen (including posting my photograph), is only proving my points, Jake. Y'all need to step back to really see what is going on.

[Greg Krom]

SIR's: Restrict underprepped engines, retain 2850 and drivability
FPR's: Restrict unerprepped engines, retain 2850 and lose drivability. Would have to by a spec setup and install it unmodified.
Weight: Engines go unrestricted, car uses more tires and brakes, treated same as all cars in IT

These are the facts as we know them now. What do you think is the best thing for IT?

[/b]

Couldn't the option be written into the IT specs for the car so that each individual racer can choose his or her poison? It could be as simple as listing two different weights on the spec line - 3050 unrestricted or 2850 restricted.

Right now, based on the data that we've seen so far, I think that SIR's have NO BUSINESS being mandated for any IT car. If it was available as an option that would be one thing, but I think requiring it is simply unreasonable, especially with very little time to implement it.

At this juncture, I think offering the BMW racers a choice of restrictions is the only fair and equitable way to resolve this situation - that is the best thing for IT as a whole.

[buldogge]

Hey Jake... You're right I don't know yet...and I won't know until I order and implement the 29mm SIR...

Seeing as how there was confusion/mis-information, I wasn't about to order a 27mm SIR (smart move apparently) and now I have a motnh and a week to implement a restrictor that desn't know where it wants to be placed or what kind of tuning it needs...oh, I forgot...I better order a MOTEC too (not gonna happen in the current climate here).

You know...you highlight a perfect example of JUST WHY the release of the other dynos (strong baseline motor among them I hope/assume?) would benefit ALL of us!



But.....how do you know that your full tilt motor WON't make 185 RWHP???

Again, this entire mess is about how a couple guys feel robbed, and that the underprepared acrs are not given a freebie.

That they are entitled to better treatment than any other car, because the organizers were foolish enough to try to make the racing better....

WHY are the guys below the curve any more entitled than me or any other non E36 driver????
[/b]

[seckerich]

Couldn't the option be written into the IT specs for the car so that each individual racer can choose his or her poison? It could be as simple as listing two different weights on the spec line - 3050 unrestricted or 2850 restricted.

Right now, based on the data that we've seen so far, I think that SIR's have NO BUSINESS being mandated for any IT car. If it was available as an option that would be one thing, but I think requiring it is simply unreasonable, especially with very little time to implement it.

At this juncture, I think offering the BMW racers a choice of restrictions is the only fair and equitable way to resolve this situation - that is the best thing for IT as a whole.
[/b]
Write the letter Greg and I am with you 100%. That is the best option I have seen to date. Think the SIR is bad and you make tons of power- go with the weight. If not give the sir a shot and tune away. Seems win - win to me. No problem with dual prep lines in the ITCS for this big mess. Sanity has returned!! :cavallo:

[Joe Harlan]

Steve, I started with class. I was shat upon for, among other things, not posting my real name & my # of posts.

You are sadly one-sided in your outrage. And still, the real issues I have raised remain ignored. Ironic that I keep trying to bring the conversation back to them, and I keep getting attacked, isn't it?

Bill, I am honestly glad we see some common ground. I am also glad you saw the humor in our mutual name-joking.

I want no pound of flesh, Bill. However, I do believe accountability is sorely lacking in this situation. All I see is repeated wagon-circling & attack-the-messenger(s). Yes, you will see my letter. And no, I am not an only child. Next?

Joe, you are correct--that's me. Do we know each other? Is my affiliation with Anchor in any way relevant?
LateApex, here is why this is such a "big deal": this rule change (first 27mm, now 29mm), due in 5 weeks, costs major $$$ for the BMW ITSers. When it is unproven, ill-conceived, and based on bullshit, being required to spend big bucks for crap is going to be...um...unpopular.
[/b]

None other than I like to know who I talking to.

[lateapex911]

Hey Jake... You're right I don't know yet...and I won't know until I order and implement the 29mm SIR...


You know...you highlight a perfect example of JUST WHY the release of the other dynos (strong baseline motor among them I hope/assume?) would benefit ALL of us!
[/b]

Agreed, we all want to see the math.

[Harry Balszac]

None other than I like to know who I talking to.
[/b]


Fair enough. I wasn't sure if we had met.

[lateapex911]

Aw, geez, Jake.

First of all, pardon the hell out of me for trying to inject a little bit of humor into this stuff with the user name I chose. If you are going to make issue with that, have a field day. You will get no further responses from me on that, because it is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

Second, sorry but I am not inclined to disprove a negative just for your amusement. Public promises were made, public derision was ladled thickly upon those who questioned and/or doubted, and now further public derision is being ladled upon those who want some accountability for this debacle, instead of blaming Raetech and Bill Kim. People are being forced to either spend huge sums for technology that, so far, has proven NOT to perform as advertised by the rulemakers, or to leave ITS.

And all you have is circular arguments trying to redefine what "is" is?

That, and some of the other crap that this thread has seen (including posting my photograph), is only proving my points, Jake. Y'all need to step back to really see what is going on.
[/b]

OK, we will agree to disagree on the name and the attitude ... no problem.

Sadly I can't let this go..... without stating that I am not blaming anyone. esp Bill Kim!

And I differ on whether the technology performs as it needs to..

...which is to make the car fit the process....

THAT has not been proved or disproved.

The rest of this hype is really immaterial. I know you think it matters if cars below the build level are affected,, and you will throw the entire case out for that "mistruth", and thats your right...it's your opinion...

My opinion is that we haven't seen evidence that the SIR will, or will not, create a car that fits the process.

We differ. We have the right in America to do just that.

I'm off to be productive.

[Ron Earp]

This thread has really degenerated to new all time lows. I own and run a forum and I'd have cut the plug on such a thread at this point. Maintaining a reasonable signal to noise ratio is important and I fear we've crossed the threshold value to unreasonable. Let's get back to some real IT discussion that is somewhat productive.

[dj10]

Guys, Gals....etc, enough is enough. The posting of Dave's picture is uncalled for! Dave has every right to express himself even if 1/2 of it is Bullshit. It does not matter what I or anyone else thinks, he expressed himself so be it. Now Dave, I ask you since the CRB has made the ruling and we can't do anything about it, what's next? Do you quit racing SCCA or do you try & make the SIR work? Actually it's pretty simple, you do or don't. I have every bit as much at stake as every other BMW E36 driver. I plan to do what is right for me, I think you should do the same Dave because no matter who, how, or why this has happened it has. Just deal with it in your own way just don't use the people that are trying to make "racing close" your pissing post. I hope you have understanding & class to get past this. This isn't just for Dave but everyone that has been abusive.

[Harry Balszac]

Guys, Gals....etc, enough is enough. The posting of Dave's picture is uncalled for! Dave has every right to express himself even if 1/2 of it is Bullshit. It does not matter what I or anyone else thinks, he expressed himself so be it. Now Dave, I ask you since the CRB has made the ruling and we can't do anything about it, what's next? Do you quit racing SCCA or do you try & make the SIR work? Actually it's pretty simple, you do or don't. I have every bit as much at stake as every other BMW E36 driver. I plan to do what is right for me, I think you should do the same Dave because no matter who, how, or why this has happened it has. Just deal with it in your on way just don't use the people that are trying to make "racing close" your pissing post. I hope you have understanding & class to get past this. This isn't just for Dave but everyone that has been abusive.
[/b]


Of course, DJ. Thanks.

Frankly, the posting of my photo, and the crap that accompanied it, reflects a lot worse on the people behind posting it. I suspect New Guy is the second account (a TOS violation) of a regular poster here...but who cares? They have made themselves the fool with that post, and only butressed the points I was trying to make. I have nothing to hide. Apparently, however, some folks taking futile shots at me do. their over-reaction shows just how close to the mark this issue cuts for them, it seems. 'Nuff said on that.

[Joe Harlan]

Of course, DJ. Thanks.

Frankly, the posting of my photo, and the crap that accompanied it, reflects a lot worse on the people behind posting it. I suspect New Guy is the second account (a TOS violation) of a regular poster here...but who cares? They have made themselves the fool with that post, and only butressed the points I was trying to make. I have nothing to hide. Apparently, however, some folks taking futile shots at me do. their over-reaction shows just how close to the mark this issue cuts for them, it seems. 'Nuff said on that.
[/b]
Well Dave how about you be the bigger dude here and register with some kind of proper name and lets get down to making these things work for every one.

[Harry Balszac]

Oh, good grief, Joe. Get off it!

I do not see how my choice of user name has any more relevance than yours. Way to focus on the unimportant...

You got your wish--finding out who I was. Now it is time to let it go, Joe.

[Bill Miller]

Yee gods, if I looked like this I'd be acting like a spoiled brat too:

<div align="center">http://www.ctgilles.net/images/pictars/caution.jpg

Hey, they tell me that "only steers and queers come from Texas...and you don&#39;t much look like a steer to me so that kinda narrows it down..."

Got a joke for you: What&#39;s the difference between a BMW and a porcupine? The pricks are on the OUTSIDE of a porcupine!!

This is fun...even for my first post...Remember, we&#39;re all LAUGHING AT YOU...
[/b][/quote]


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.

[Joe Harlan]

Oh, good grief, Joe. Get off it!

I do not see how my choice of user name has any more relevance than yours. Way to focus on the unimportant...

You got your wish--finding out who I was. Now it is time to let it go, Joe.
[/b]


Actually Dave, It has more to do with the lack of humor in the name. This forum has been a pretty decent clean place to participate in and even guys like me that loose it from time to time have edited out most of the wrong stuff. You don&#39;t represent anyone well with that name or attitude. I have now been polite and asked nice twice. The relevance to my name is it is my real name and I have enough sack to back up what I say with my real name.

[Harry Balszac]

Bill, Joe,

I appreciate the advice. However, my user name stays.

[buldogge]

Now for something completely different...

If the SCCA has not specified a &#39;spec&#39; SIR (ie Raetech) what exactly determines what a 29mm SIR is...???

Has the SCCA provided a definition of this part...if so...where can we find it...?

[Tristan Smith]

I think the point that everyone here is missing is that regardless of the outcome of the dyno findings and on track results there is always going to be differences of opinion on whether this whole issue has been handled correctly and in a timely manner.

That aside, the abusive attacks on BOTH sides of this issues are out of hand. As one of the original members of this forum, I have become increasingly shocked and disgusted by the denigration of these discussions into personal attacks, and regulated by the "who can yell the loudest and longest" syndrome. I also feel like most discussions here become hijacked by half a dozen or so of the members here who feel the need to argue back and forth endlessely untill the rest of us walk away from the discussion because of "fatigue" and disinterest.

I don&#39;t think we as a "group" have ever totally agreed on a subject. Thats fine. That&#39;s why we have discussions on this board. But too many times these discussions turn into bullying sessions, rants, personal attacks and worse.

We are all smart people here, and we can do better.

[imported_Webmaster]

A rediculously large % of you acting up here have already been chastized in the last episide of IT.com character assasination... and frankly I&#39;m a little surprised since I know some of the repeat offenders personally... you wouldn&#39;t act this way in person, why do it here?

Now since I hate to type... I wil refer you to the links below... you know what the next step is. RLEAP is correct and I wont have the few ruin this site for the masses.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...indpost&p=70254 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=6669&view=findpost&p=70254)

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...indpost&p=70323 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=6669&view=findpost&p=70323)

[steve s]

now for some serious business. talked to raetech no 29mm SIRfor about a weekor more.
time is ticking away,you think scca would have let the instigator of the SIRknow what size to
keep in stock ???????

[Harry Balszac]

now for some serious business. talked to raetech no 29mm SIRfor about a weekor more.
time is ticking away,you think scca would have let the instigator of the SIRknow what size to
keep in stock ???????
[/b]


Yeah, you&#39;d think, wouldn&#39;t you?

Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice....well, you know the rest.

:angry:

[Joe Harlan]

Yeah, you&#39;d think, wouldn&#39;t you?

Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice....well, you know the rest.

:angry:
[/b] Well considering that the CRB has been accused of being bought by raetech I guess this is proof that ain&#39;t true. You can buy the SIR housing today so you can install it and have them ship the insert when it&#39;s done. So you don&#39;t loose install time that everyone&#39;s complaining about.

[lateapex911]

Well considering that the CRB has been accused of being bought by raetech I guess this is proof that ain&#39;t true. You can buy the SIR housing today so you can install it and have them ship the insert when it&#39;s done. So you don&#39;t loose install time that everyone&#39;s complaining about.
[/b]


Sigh.......

We were told that they we informed of the decision.

[Bill Miller]

Well considering that the CRB has been accused of being bought by raetech I guess this is proof that ain&#39;t true. You can buy the SIR housing today so you can install it and have them ship the insert when it&#39;s done. So you don&#39;t loose install time that everyone&#39;s complaining about.
[/b]


That&#39;s a crock and you know it Joe. You were one of the main people that said that the engine would be "blind" to the SIR below its target hp. Sounds like you bought into Raetch&#39;s line of crap pretty hard. You picked the wrong horse.

Jake,

Sigh is right!

[seckerich]

That&#39;s a crock and you know it Joe. You were one of the main people that said that the engine would be "blind" to the SIR below its target hp. Sounds like you bought into Raetch&#39;s line of crap pretty hard. You picked the wrong horse.

Jake,

Sigh is right!
[/b]
Only way that a motor will be blind to an SIR is if it is way in front of the air flow meter. This puts it outside the allowance for intake air in IT. Some will tune without the signal from the AFM and get right back to their original numbers. Just because "the tests" did not show this does not mean it can&#39;t be done. You way underestimate some tuners. Same responses I remember from the flat plate debate--got bit on that didn&#39;t we?? Wait and see the creative intake hoses that were opened up to the throttle body before you make your decision.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Fron post #190


So...the SIR technology is what it is. Let&#39;s move forward from this post. I would like DoubleD, Mr. Scott and anyone else to weigh in. Knowing what you know about the options:

SIR&#39;s: Restrict underprepped engines, retain 2850 and drivability
FPR&#39;s: Restrict unerprepped engines, retain 2850 and lose drivability. Would have to by a spec setup and install it unmodified.
Weight: Engines go unrestricted, car uses more tires and brakes, treated same as all cars in IT

These are the facts as we know them now. What do you think is the best thing for IT?[/b]

Mr. Scott - can we move forward? Your posts say the same thing over and over but never get to a solution. What are your thoughts on an actual solution?

AB

[Harry Balszac]

A rediculously large % of you acting up here have already been chastized in the last episide of IT.com character assasination... and frankly I&#39;m a little surprised since I know some of the repeat offenders personally... you wouldn&#39;t act this way in person, why do it here?

Now since I hate to type... I wil refer you to the links below... you know what the next step is. RLEAP is correct and I wont have the few ruin this site for the masses.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...indpost&p=70254 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=6669&view=findpost&p=70254)

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...indpost&p=70323 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=6669&view=findpost&p=70323)
[/b]


Thank you very much for handling the situation swiftly, bro.



That&#39;s a crock and you know it Joe. You were one of the main people that said that the engine would be "blind" to the SIR below its target hp. Sounds like you bought into Raetch&#39;s line of crap pretty hard. You picked the wrong horse.

Jake,

Sigh is right!
[/b]


Thanks for saying this, Bill. Bingo.



Fron post #190
Mr. Scott - can we move forward? Your posts say the same thing over and over but never get to a solution. What are your thoughts on an actual solution?

AB
[/b]


Andy, so do yours. Ironic, isn&#39;t it?

However, I will break the mold & actually answer your question. Here is what I think should be done:

Scrap this "solution" entirely, go back to the drawing board, test SIR&#39;s of all sizes & PUBLISH THE RESULTS immediately, and make sure to test them on full-bling motors & lower-budget motors equally. Do LOTS of dyno tests. Then, find the actual TESTED AND DOCUMENTED solution that gives the desired ~190hp level for the full-bling motors w/o giving the grassroots-budget motors a death sentence. Publish results & the documented, tested SIR size, for implementation on 1/1/07. Oh, and publish all minutes of all meetings where this issues is discussed & decided. This needs to be 100% on the up & up, with integrity and credibility, in order to preserve the spirit, honesty, and grassroots involvement for which SCCA club racing is known.

Oh, and you personally should not be involved in any of it.

[Joe Harlan]

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&#39;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.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, so do yours. Ironic, isn&#39;t it?[/b]

At least I am trying to move forward instead of treading water.


However, I will break the mold & actually answer your question. [/b]

:happy204:


Here is what I think should be done:

Scrap this "solution" entirely, go back to the drawing board, test SIR&#39;s of all sizes & PUBLISH THE RESULTS immediately, and make sure to test them on full-bling motors & lower-budget motors equally. Do LOTS of dyno tests. Then, find the actual TESTED AND DOCUMENTED solution that gives the desired ~190hp level for the full-bling motors w/o giving the grassroots-budget motors a death sentence. Publish results & the documented, tested SIR size, for implementation on 1/1/07. Oh, and publish all minutes of all meetings where this issues is discussed & decided. This needs to be 100% on the up & up, with integrity and credibility, in order to preserve the spirit, honesty, and grassroots involvement for which SCCA club racing is known.[/b]

The problem is that there is no solution that nets the ~185whp target for full-bring stuff, yet doesn&#39;t restrict the underpreped. This is the case with an SIR or a FPR. I didn&#39;t really want to hear your &#39;wish&#39; list, I wanted to understand what you would do given the charcteristics of each of the three &#39;choices&#39; I listed. Right now, those are really the only options (having said that, the CRB has made their decision but there are many here who would like to hear how you would have handled it given the info you now know - as well as Mr. DoubleD).


Oh, and you personally should not be involved in any of it. [/b]

That will be up to the CRB and ITAC Chairman to decide. I will serve as directed.

AB

[DoubleD]

At least I am trying to move forward instead of treading water.
:happy204:
I didn&#39;t really want to hear your &#39;wish&#39; list, I wanted to understand what you would do given the charcteristics of each of the three &#39;choices&#39; I listed. Right now, those are really the only options (having said that, the CRB has made their decision but there are many here who would like to hear how you would have handled it given the info you now know - as well as Mr. DoubleD).

AB
[/b]

Restricting your list to a series of untenable choices does not make for meaningful debate. I told you months ago I&#39;d give the E36 150 pounds. I also provided a clear reason for that number.

Now, please provide a direct answer to my question in post number 160 of this thread.

[Eagle7]

Oh, and you personally should not be involved in any of it.
[/b]
What a load of crap. Pretty ironic that the only reason that Andy&#39;s taking all this heat is because he&#39;s offered the most information to us. Don&#39;t you get it that as a member of the ITAC he doesn&#39;t have the power to make a single decision? I don&#39;t know how he voted on this recommendation, but I&#39;m guessing that it was not for what the CRB implemented. Shoot the messenger and you&#39;ll get no more messages - is that what you want?

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

[Harry Balszac]

At least I am trying to move forward instead of treading water.[/b]

Whatever you say, Andy.

:happy204:



The problem is that there is no solution that nets the ~185whp target for full-bring stuff, yet doesn&#39;t restrict the underpreped. This is the case with an SIR or a FPR. [/b]

Really? Well, you & others here promised unequivocally that there was. Given that this promise seems to have now been hastily withdrawn, I believe scrapping the entire flawed, suspect process & starting over is best for the sport.


I didn&#39;t really want to hear your &#39;wish&#39; list, I wanted to understand what you would do given the charcteristics of each of the three &#39;choices&#39; I listed. Right now, those are really the only options (having said that, the CRB has made their decision but there are many here who would like to hear how you would have handled it given the info you now know - as well as Mr. DoubleD). [/b]

Sorry, Andy, but this is nonsense. Why should we have ANY faith in your claim that these are the only 3 possible choices. All due respect, but your credibility ain&#39;t real high right now. As DoubleD says, there ARE other choices. I wonder why you are not willing to look at them?





What a load of crap. Pretty ironic that the only reason that Andy&#39;s taking all this heat is because he&#39;s offered the most information to us. Don&#39;t you get it that as a member of the ITAC he doesn&#39;t have the power to make a single decision? I don&#39;t know how he voted on this recommendation, but I&#39;m guessing that it was not for what the CRB implemented. Shoot the messenger and you&#39;ll get no more messages - is that what you want?

CRB - please give them the 300 lbs and be done with it.
[/b]


Marty, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

As for shooting the messenger...that is what has been done to me over the least severl days here. Ironic, isn&#39;t it?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Restricting your list to a series of untenable choices does not make for meaningful debate. I told you months ago I&#39;d give the E36 150 pounds. I also provided a clear reason for that number.

Now, please provide a direct answer to my question in post number 160 of this thread. [/b]

I missed that post completely. Here it is:


Perhaps this is the $64,000 question:

It appears that the E36 would have been considered within the target ITS envelope had the SIR had no effect on HP and torque below the target. If, beyond reasonable doubt, it is shown that the SIR reduces HP and Torque at a given RPM below the target peak HP, is not the weight of 2850 too high? Surely the "adder" in the formula for torque must be adjusted...if the goal is parity, of course.

I suspect responses to this could be fun.[/b]

Nope. The CRB decide that the 27mm was too small. Based on actual testing they made an adjustment to the size. As Bob said, it will take 20whp of off everything. When setting a weight for a car, you have to class it based on it&#39;s POTENTIAL - it&#39;s estimated PEAK. The underprepared really have no affect on what a car should weigh. You can&#39;t do it like that. What you are suggesting is that each car gets a weight based on it&#39;s prep level - and that is impossible if not rediculous.






Whatever you say, Andy.

Really? Well, you & others here promised unequivocally that there was. Given that this promise seems to have now been hastily withdrawn, I believe scrapping the entire flawed, suspect process & starting over is best for the sport. [/b]

The promise has not been withdrawn, the &#39;promise&#39; (and I use that word lightly) has been DISPROVEN. We have told you of the error and are now working with new data. :bash_1_:


Sorry, Andy, but this is nonsense. Why should we have ANY faith in your claim that these are the only 3 possible choices. All due respect, but your credibility ain&#39;t real high right now. As DoubleD says, there ARE other choices. I wonder why you are not willing to look at them?[/b]

WHAT ARE THE OTHER CHOICES? 150lbs was thrown out by DoubleD some time ago. DD, tell us again how you got to that number? We have a process, it is working. It should work (IMHO) for this car too. To refresh from earlier in this thread:

The E36 can exceed 30% increases (about 201whp using a 18% loss factor if you are playing at home), so that is used.

189 * 1.3 * 12.9 = 3169

This is before consideration for the adders. Adders are considerations for traits that are significant vs. the rest of the class. The tranny ratios are perfect, the brakes are large (but that is mitigated in my mind by the weight at this point) and the torque numbers are off the charts. It is very reasonable to assume 3150-3200 is a fair weight given the process all the other cars have to go through.[/b]

Let&#39;s see your math again DoubleD!

HB,

Starting over is fine, but knowing what you know about how the tech works, what is your solution???


As for shooting the messenger...that is what has been done to me over the least severl days here. Ironic, isn&#39;t it? [/b] Not really. I would hardly call you a messenger. WE have delivered the message, you have complained about the message. VERY different.

[Harry Balszac]

Hahahahahaha! This just gets better and better.

[e36its]

I&#39;d like to hear what folks think about post 198 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=7626&view=findpost&p=77326). Very interesting idea, Greg. I suspect maybe the post was lost in the flurry of craptacularly bad behavior we had around that same time. Any thoughts?

tom

[Harry Balszac]

I&#39;d like to hear what folks think about post 198 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=7626&view=findpost&p=77326). Very interesting idea, Greg. I suspect maybe the post was lost in the flurry of craptacularly bad behavior we had around that same time. Any thoughts?

tom
[/b]


Tom, I must admit I missed Greg&#39;s post, too.

I believe it has merit. However, I also believe that it is not quite as simple as 300lbs or a 29mm restrictor, as Andy et al would have us believe. DoubleD&#39;s 150lb penalty also has merit, IMO.

But choice is ALWAYS good!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

I&#39;d like to hear what folks think about post 198 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=7626&view=findpost&p=77326). Very interesting idea, Greg. I suspect maybe the post was lost in the flurry of craptacularly bad behavior we had around that same time. Any thoughts?

tom [/b]

Tom,

The idea in concept has merit. The only issue is that there is no precident for it and it may open up a flurry of requests for similar allowances. If the CRB thinks it is the best thing for the E36 guys and the rest of IT, they may bite. Write in to the CRB (crb AT scca.com) and tell them you think it would be a good thing.

3050 is simply too light according to the process. I think it would look more like 29mm @ 2850 or no RP @ 3200.

AB

[DoubleD]

I missed that post completely. Here it is:
Nope. The CRB decide that the 27mm was too small. Based on actual testing they made an adjustment to the size. As Bob said, it will take 20whp of off everything. When setting a weight for a car, you have to class it based on it&#39;s POTENTIAL - it&#39;s estimated PEAK. The underprepared really have no affect on what a car should weigh. You can&#39;t do it like that. What you are suggesting is that each car gets a weight based on it&#39;s prep level - and that is impossible if not rediculous.
The promise has not been withdrawn, the &#39;promise&#39; (and I use that word lightly) has been DISPROVEN. We have told you of the error and are now working with new data. :bash_1_:
[/b]

So what you are saying is that your promise was meaningless. Having been disproven has not affected implementation at all. That, sir, is a total lack of honor.



WHAT ARE THE OTHER CHOICES? 150lbs was thrown out by DoubleD some time ago. DD, tell us again how you got to that number? We have a process, it is working. It should work (IMHO) for this car too.
[/b]

My process for coming up with that weight has been explained just as thoroughly as your process. It&#39;s subjective. It&#39;s an allowance for the FACT that weight has an exponential effect on performance that is not adequately described by HP/weight. This is a fact which you scoffed at months ago and I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll do again now.



Starting over is fine, but knowing what you know about how the tech works, what is your solution???
[/b]

The theory behind SIR is sound. I&#39;ve never denied that. What I told you on BF is that significant testing will be required to make it work. The basic problem with the implementation of the SIR is that it requires extremely steady pressure on both sides of the SIR to work properly. Small variations in pressure, especially on the downstream side, will cause large changes in the speed of sound at the exit of the SIR. Those changes will cause the SIR&#39;s output to change dramatically. While placing the SIR downstream of all other flow restrictions will allow it to provide the maximum available flow through the intake tract by reducing the pressure on the inlet side, placement too close to the valves, intake horns, and plenum will allow the pressure waves created in the intake plenum to reach the downstream end of the SIR. What you end up with is an SIR that "puffs" air rather than providing a consistant stream. Thsoe puffs being out of phase with the tuning of the plenum shape and air horns are, I believe, the reason that motors are going lean on the SIR (a counter-intuitive result).

A lot of testing will need to be done and, I suspect, that in order to make the program work a complete intake tract will need to be developed and spec&#39;d through SCCA. It may be inconvinient for you to do so at this time, but you may well remember that I alluded to this heavily over a month ago.





Let&#39;s see your math again DoubleD!


[/b]

That&#39;s great math if you are John Force. Unfortunately, this isn&#39;t drag racing and weight penalizes more than just acceleration, especially when tire size is static accross a 1000lbs range of weight in the class. Show me where your math accounts for the weight normalized to tire size and you&#39;ll have a convert.

[Andy Bettencourt]

DoubleD&#39;s 150lb penalty also has merit, IMO.
[/b]

I love how it&#39;s a &#39;penalty&#39; and not what it SHOULD weigh. I would like to understand why you think 3000lbs is the right number. The E46 323 at 172 stock hp is 3000lbs.




So what you are saying is that your promise was meaningless. Having been disproven has not affected implementation at all. That, sir, is a total lack of honor.[/b]

Not at all. Nobody promised that if it disn&#39;t work exactly as billed it was no longer an option.




My process for coming up with that weight has been explained just as thoroughly as your process. It&#39;s subjective. It&#39;s an allowance for the FACT that weight has an exponential effect on performance that is not adequately described by HP/weight. This is a fact which you scoffed at months ago and I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll do again now. [/b]

Just copy and paste it here like I did so we can review it once more.


The theory behind SIR is sound. I&#39;ve never denied that. What I told you on BF is that significant testing will be required to make it work. The basic problem with the implementation of the SIR is that it requires extremely steady pressure on both sides of the SIR to work properly. Small variations in pressure, especially on the downstream side, will cause large changes in the speed of sound at the exit of the SIR. Those changes will cause the SIR&#39;s output to change dramatically. While placing the SIR downstream of all other flow restrictions will allow it to provide the maximum available flow through the intake tract by reducing the pressure on the inlet side, placement too close to the valves, intake horns, and plenum will allow the pressure waves created in the intake plenum to reach the downstream end of the SIR. What you end up with is an SIR that "puffs" air rather than providing a consistant stream. Thsoe puffs being out of phase with the tuning of the plenum shape and air horns are, I believe, the reason that motors are going lean on the SIR (a counter-intuitive result).[/b]

Your presentation is excellent but I admit I am no engineer.


A lot of testing will need to be done and, I suspect, that in order to make the program work a complete intake tract will need to be developed and spec&#39;d through SCCA. It may be inconvinient for you to do so at this time, but you may well remember that I alluded to this heavily over a month ago.[/b]

If this is the way the CRB wants to go, I would support a spec intake set-up 100% sold through SCCA Enterprises.


That&#39;s great math if you are John Force. Unfortunately, this isn&#39;t drag racing and weight penalizes more than just acceleration, especially when tire size is static accross a 1000lbs range of weight in the class. Show me where your math accounts for the weight normalized to tire size and you&#39;ll have a convert. [/b]

This isn&#39;t an exact science. It&#39;s an estimation. You can see by the numbers that the weight suggestion of 3200 lbs has been &#39;normalized based in a few factors. 1. Larger brakes have little advantage when weight climes with respect to other cars. 2. 3169 is the weight BEFORE consideration of HUGE torque and perfect tranny ratios - (anyone else have a 1:1 5th?). I think you will find that an even 3200 is very reasonable. The problem here is that people look at 2850 as the &#39;correct&#39; weight to begin with and that is so far from the case.

You want to add 150lbs? No BS here, please point us to the detail.

AB

[Bob Dowie]

Hi Dave,

There are no transcripts of the ad hoc calls. When the call is over we have a set of notes very similar to what you see in fastrack, with notations from the committee. The notes may be wording suggestions, or outlines of both sides of an issue that the committee is split on, or an idea that the committee would like to bring forward. They certainly aren&#39;t detailed as to who said what. There are also two CRB liaisons on the calls that listen to the discussion and bring the committees recommendations and thoughts to the CRB for consideration. While the committee&#39;s recommendations carry more weight then ever, it is the CRB that makes the final call or recommendation.

If your asking for this information to find evidence that Andy is the driving force behind the E36 changes you won&#39;t find any because it&#39;s not the case. When I was appointed to the CRB the E36 was on the agenda, this was well before the committees roles were increased to the level they are today, and predates most members of the current committee including Andy. I can assure you it would be impossible for any one member of any committee to move a personal agenda forward under the current process.

I don&#39;t think anyone would disagree with your suggestion on the ideal way to test and implement these type of changes, the only hang up is funding. There were some good suggestions brought forward at the convention to raise money for the Tech dept that would allow them to do some of what you suggest, but at the current time the money isn&#39;t there.



DJ,

Your question was asked during the Club Racing town hall meeting at the convention. I&#39;m afraid I didn&#39;t catch the gentleman&#39;s name but I&#39;ll be glad to give you the same answer here. If we&#39;re wrong it will be fixed. Its certainly more important we get this right then it is that the CRB save face by standing behind a bad decision. Of course I can understand you being skeptical and I certainly would have preferred I didn&#39;t miss the size to start with. I&#39;d like to thank the folks that provided us with the quick feedback and solid data that showed the initial sizing to be wrong. I remain convinced its better to restrict the power then to add that much weight. And believe an SIR is a better way to do it versus an equally effective flat plate.

Thanks, Bob

[lateapex911]

......... and make sure to test them on full-bling motors & lower-budget motors equally. Do LOTS of dyno tests. Then, find the actual TESTED AND DOCUMENTED solution that gives the desired ~190hp level for the full-bling motors w/o giving the grassroots-budget motors a death sentence. [/b]

OK, rather than beat my head against a wall any more, I will skip many points and just hit a highlight or two...

one-

WHY do you, Harry Balsac think that this car is more entitled to preferential treatment than any other car listed in the ITCS??? Simply put, why do some members of this owner group, (or people campaigning for the car) feel they are deserving of a better deal than afforded every one else?

two-

Harry, will you provide the full bling car for your required testing? Or do you suggest the club purchase one?

[Harry Balszac]

Bob, I am very grateful for your considered response. That is all I sought. My desire in gaining transparency for the procedings was to see whether there was a predetermined bias against the E36, or towards the RX-7, by anyone who has an obvious vested interest in the success of the latter. So many people suspect this--true or not--that absolute transparency is the ONLY way to remove the giant stigma over this entire 3 year ordeal. I regret that it now appears that transparency of these procedings will not be available. Oh, well, I tried! And got shat upon mercilessly for doing do (not by you, though, and for that I am grateful).

Jake, I don&#39;t think ANYONE is entitled to preferential treatment. Nor do I think the E36 is the proven overdog it is claimed to be, on track. When guys like Andy, who has a vested interest in RX-7s, tell us that on-track performance is irrelevant, and some magical formula is all that matters...well, it sure smells bad to me and a lot of other people. Frankly, the E36 and the RX-7 are pretty evenly matched on track. To me, why reduce the E36&#39;s competitiveness for some retarded "formula" when on-track performance is so equal?

[mlytle]

the option that would be the simplest of all...

d/ none of the above..

reclassify the e36 into a new class above its at a lower weight. then bring in some other cars into the new class that are available.


do this NOW!!! end the lunacy of the performance compensation adjustment on the e36. :happy204:

[DoubleD]

Not at all. Nobody promised that if it disn&#39;t work exactly as billed it was no longer an option.

[/b]

Fine. But since it has not worked as promised, the implementation method should be changed accordingly. This has not happened. I find it odd, to say the least, that sufficient data was collected to change the SIR sizing but that data is not being released despite the extremely short period provided to racers in which to make the required changes. As with so many other aspects of this SNAFU, I find it highly suspect.



Just copy and paste it here like I did so we can review it once more.
[/b]

It&#39;s an estimate. It&#39;s not based on hokey, over simplified, meaningless math like yours is.



Your presentation is excellent but I admit I am no engineer.
[/b]

No kidding. If you were, you&#39;d have never allowed your mouth to write checks your ass can&#39;t cash. You&#39;d have known full well that making declarative statements about how the SIR would function without testing first was a bad move. It&#39;s a shame that you lack the brass to accept the proper responsibility for those statements. Frankly, your unwillingness to even attempt to do the right thing - to accept some responsibility and try to STOP the implementation of the rule change indicates to me that fairness is indeed not what you seek. Instead you&#39;ve simply shrugged and pointed the finger at Finch and CRB.



If this is the way the CRB wants to go, I would support a spec intake set-up 100% sold through SCCA Enterprises.
[/b]

It seems likely to me that this is the only tenable means by which to impelement an SIR program in this case.



This isn&#39;t an exact science. It&#39;s an estimation. You can see by the numbers that the weight suggestion of 3200 lbs has been &#39;normalized based in a few factors. 1. Larger brakes have little advantage when weight climes with respect to other cars.2. 3169 is the weight BEFORE consideration of HUGE torque and perfect tranny ratios - (anyone else have a 1:1 5th?). I think you will find that an even 3200 is very reasonable. The problem here is that people look at 2850 as the &#39;correct&#39; weight to begin with and that is so far from the case.
[/b]

You mean the brakes that are smaller and have an inferior caliper design compared to the 944?

Once again, you have either failed to address my point or have ignored it for convinience.

Months ago I became involved in posting on this subject because I was beginning to build an ITS car. From that time I have conceeded that the E36 needed an adjustment. Despite that relatively moderate position, I have received nothing but arrogant and scornfull replies devoid of meaningful response. That even those who would agree with you and try to work out a fair and equitable compromise are treated with scorn and ridicule is telling. That when the changes you propone fail to produce the stated effect (I use the word stated, not intended) you continue on with them is a crystal clear indication of what is going on.

I have continued to post in various threads on this topic without any direct interest either on track or financial. I have done so only in a desire to see fairness played out for people unable to speak as freely as I due to fear of future retaliation. Frankly, it is clear that all is lost at this point. The rule is promulgated and the date certain set. I would love to be wrong, but am convinced that the E36 325 is dead in ITS as a competitive car. You win, Andy. The RX7 will again be dominant...until Glenn Yi sells the two 944&#39;s he&#39;s got, at which point this will all begin again with the 944 squarely in your sights.

[Greg Krom]

Tom,

The idea in concept has merit. The only issue is that there is no precident for it and it may open up a flurry of requests for similar allowances. If the CRB thinks it is the best thing for the E36 guys and the rest of IT, they may bite. Write in to the CRB (crb AT scca.com) and tell them you think it would be a good thing.

3050 is simply too light according to the process. I think it would look more like 29mm @ 2850 or no RP @ 3200.

AB
[/b]

Actually 3050 is almost exactly correct according to the process as you&#39;ve documented it, even using the high end of the power/weight scale for ITS (12.9). That is a 200lb increase over the cars current weight - a very significant correction to the original misclassification. It will accomplish the goal of bringing the E36 closer to the rest of the field and will do so by treating it exactly like every other car in ITS.

I understand that you are applying a different multiplier for the E36 since it "responds better" to IT prep. In my opinion, that is invalid and subjective, especially added to the fact that you use the high end of the desired power/weight scale as well.

How many other cars were given different multipliers than 1.25 (higher or lower)? How many other cars have been tested with Motec and all of the full prep bling that take a car from 95% prep to full bore, no excuses 100%? Who&#39;s to say that there aren&#39;t examples of RX7, Integra GSR, 240Z... that have shown similar yields, or will if prepared to the same degree?

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.

If at 3050 the BMW 325 is still the best car in ITS when built to the absolute maximum, then so what? It will have been classified in the same manner, using the same math, as every other car in ITS. To me, that would be perfectly fair and the other cars in ITS would have ZERO grounds for complaint. And in my opinion, the BMW owners should have ZERO grounds for complaint or quitting either.

At that weight you will not see partially prepped 325&#39;s running with or beating fully prepped RX7&#39;s, 240Z, etc. The performance should be comparable based on the relative prep of each vehicle. Thats the idea here - right?

By changing the multiplier for certain cars you are opening yourselves up to crys of "foul".

Off subject, sort of, but what are the bogey power to weight numbers for ITA, B and C?

[Joe Harlan]

Fine. But since it has not worked as promised, the implementation method should be changed accordingly. This has not happened. I find it odd, to say the least, that sufficient data was collected to change the SIR sizing but that data is not being released despite the extremely short period provided to racers in which to make the required changes. As with so many other aspects of this SNAFU, I find it highly suspect.
It&#39;s an estimate. It&#39;s not based on hokey, over simplified, meaningless math like yours is.
No kidding. If you were, you&#39;d have never allowed your mouth to write checks your ass can&#39;t cash. You&#39;d have known full well that making declarative statements about how the SIR would function without testing first was a bad move. It&#39;s a shame that you lack the brass to accept the proper responsibility for those statements. Frankly, your unwillingness to even attempt to do the right thing - to accept some responsibility and try to STOP the implementation of the rule change indicates to me that fairness is indeed not what you seek. Instead you&#39;ve simply shrugged and pointed the finger at Finch and CRB.
It seems likely to me that this is the only tenable means by which to impelement an SIR program in this case.

You mean the brakes that are smaller and have an inferior caliper design compared to the 944?

Once again, you have either failed to address my point or have ignored it for convinience.

Months ago I became involved in posting on this subject because I was beginning to build an ITS car. From that time I have conceeded that the E36 needed an adjustment. Despite that relatively moderate position, I have received nothing but arrogant and scornfull replies devoid of meaningful response. That even those who would agree with you and try to work out a fair and equitable compromise are treated with scorn and ridicule is telling. That when the changes you propone fail to produce the stated effect (I use the word stated, not intended) you continue on with them is a crystal clear indication of what is going on.

I have continued to post in various threads on this topic without any direct interest either on track or financial. I have done so only in a desire to see fairness played out for people unable to speak as freely as I due to fear of future retaliation. Frankly, it is clear that all is lost at this point. The rule is promulgated and the date certain set. I would love to be wrong, but am convinced that the E36 325 is dead in ITS as a competitive car. You win, Andy. The RX7 will again be dominant...until Glenn Yi sells the two 944&#39;s he&#39;s got, at which point this will all begin again with the 944 squarely in your sights.
[/b]

Dave, I assume that when you are proven wrong you will be back here ready to publicly apologize for dragging people good names through the mud? If I for one moment thought this had anything to do with making the Mazda an overdog I would be the first one screaming about it. There are really people out there that can separate their personal interests from the job they are doing. This is a large committee of guys that are made up of all kinds of cars and classes....It is time to get over it and figure out how to make the thing work as you stated the rule is in play now.

[dj10]

Hi Dave,
DJ,

Your question was asked during the Club Racing town hall meeting at the convention. I&#39;m afraid I didn&#39;t catch the gentleman&#39;s name but I&#39;ll be glad to give you the same answer here. If we&#39;re wrong it will be fixed. Its certainly more important we get this right then it is that the CRB save face by standing behind a bad decision. Of course I can understand you being skeptical and I certainly would have preferred I didn&#39;t miss the size to start with. I&#39;d like to thank the folks that provided us with the quick feedback and solid data that showed the initial sizing to be wrong. I remain convinced its better to restrict the power then to add that much weight. And believe an SIR is a better way to do it versus an equally effective flat plate.

Thanks, Bob
[/b]

Bob,
Thanks for your response. I can only imagine what everyone on the ITAC & CRB has gone through now with the posts that I&#39;ve seen. I am finally glad to see someone take the bull by the horns and make a decision not only the SIR (not sure yet :D )but the weight plasement also (good call). Like others I&#39;m alittle disappointed, like others, no results were posted & that the CRB did not see fit to implement the location of the SIR in the rules. It&#39;s time to move ahead and get ready to race. If this thing doesn&#39;t work you&#39;ll be hearing from me shortly ;) .
Thanks
dj

[Andy Bettencourt]

Fine. But since it has not worked as promised, the implementation method should be changed accordingly. This has not happened. I find it odd, to say the least, that sufficient data was collected to change the SIR sizing but that data is not being released despite the extremely short period provided to racers in which to make the required changes. As with so many other aspects of this SNAFU, I find it highly suspect.[/b]

That is your right, while I disagree, your point is made.




It&#39;s an estimate. It&#39;s not based on hokey, over simplified, meaningless math like yours is.[/b]

So yours is an estimate and the ITAC&#39;s meaningless? I have never head anything so funny.


No kidding. If you were, you&#39;d have never allowed your mouth to write checks your ass can&#39;t cash. You&#39;d have known full well that making declarative statements about how the SIR would function without testing first was a bad move. It&#39;s a shame that you lack the brass to accept the proper responsibility for those statements. [/b]

Here is where your BMW-colored glasses get in your way. First off, we got the size and info FROM AN ENGINEER. Duh. We were told about it, we were sold on it, and the data was wrong. The SCCA made a mistake by not testing the conclusions that had been proven on other applications. I said we were wrong in assuming the data we got was right. Your harshness shows us how rational you are.


Frankly, your unwillingness to even attempt to do the right thing - to accept some responsibility and try to STOP the implementation of the rule change indicates to me that fairness is indeed not what you seek. Instead you&#39;ve simply shrugged and pointed the finger at Finch and CRB. [/b]

STOP THE PRESSES! You nailed me!!!!!! I am caught. :wacko:

It&#39;s statements like these that prove to me that you operate in a vacuum without seeking the facts. Put this on record so you can read it before you go to bed every night. When I started doing my analysis of the data, and what was &#39;true&#39; and what wasn&#39;t about the technology, I expressed my immediate concern with the SIR. The more I thought about it, the ENTIRE impact on BMW drivers of all flavors, the rest of ITS and all of IT, I was (and am) in the firm AGAINST category. I can, however, see both sides of the pro&#39;s and cons and will explain them to anyone who asks IN SUPPORT of the CRB, so that people can make their own decision.



You mean the brakes that are smaller and have an inferior caliper design compared to the 944?[/b]

There is a forrest out there behind those trees you know. I don&#39;t think you will find any Porsche in ITS with larger front brakes than the E36. Regardless, it&#39;s about having something superior to the MAJORITY of the class that would give in an &#39;adder&#39;. The 944 got a whack for the brakes it has - given it&#39;s weight and power output. Apperantly you missed it when I said the large brakes were marginalized by the weight at that level...so why bring them up?


Once again, you have either failed to address my point or have ignored it for convinience.[/b]

Haven&#39;t seen anyone get your point yet.



I have continued to post in various threads on this topic without any direct interest either on track or financial. I have done so only in a desire to see fairness played out for people unable to speak as freely as I due to fear of future retaliation. Frankly, it is clear that all is lost at this point. The rule is promulgated and the date certain set. I would love to be wrong, but am convinced that the E36 325 is dead in ITS as a competitive car. You win, Andy. The RX7 will again be dominant...until Glenn Yi sells the two 944&#39;s he&#39;s got, at which point this will all begin again with the 944 squarely in your sights.[/b]

Your being convinced the E36 is dead is based in pure nothingness. If the E36 is &#39;allowed&#39; to put 185whp and 175ft/lbs to the ground at 2850, you think the car is dead? I think it&#39;s still one of the cars to have. So do MANY others.

Great final words in your post. :015:

[e36its]

The only issue is that there is no precident for it and it may open up a flurry of requests for similar allowances.[/b]That is a good point, Andy. I&#39;d argue the CRB would indeed set a fresh precedent with a decision to allow both an unrestricted as well as a restricted weight for the E36, but no more than they did using an air restrictor on the E36.

I recognize that rules allowances can have unintended consequences so I&#39;m somewhat leery of opening up this precedent -- but do you see it as opening a pandora&#39;s box if an alternate weight is spec&#39;d in any situation where a restrictor is used for a PCA?

tom

[buldogge]

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!!!




the option that would be the simplest of all...

d/ none of the above..

reclassify the e36 into a new class above its at a lower weight. then bring in some other cars into the new class that are available.
do this NOW!!! end the lunacy of the performance compensation adjustment on the e36. :happy204:
[/b]

[Jeremy Billiel]

I can&#39;t believe that this post is still alive :dead_horse:

Look - I think everyone would agree that the CRB has not done a good job in communicating the SIR situation and it makes people unhappy.

Was I happy that the Integra GSR did not get a weight break in ITS? No, but guys this is racing FOR FUN. The difference between second and first doesn&#39;t mean a ride with Penske.

To attack Andy and Jake is a new low that is disgusting. They are *volunteering* to help SCCA, this is not a job. It’s shit like this that gives SCCA a bad name. Let&#39;s move on already!

*Rant off*

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually 3050 is almost exactly correct according to the process as you&#39;ve documented it, even using the high end of the power/weight scale for ITS (12.9). That is a 200lb increase over the cars current weight - a very significant correction to the original misclassification. It will accomplish the goal of bringing the E36 closer to the rest of the field and will do so by treating it exactly like every other car in ITS. [/b]

Greg,

Where do you come up with &#39;the high end&#39; of the P/W scale? That IS the number we use, no other. It&#39;s a target. You obvioulsy didn&#39;t read the whole thread. Multipliers are used subjectively based on KNOWN information. We know that The 944 varients are very maximized from the factory so we use 20% based on real crank numbers from big-buck builders. We know Honda&#39;s make more. We know rotories make more. We adjust and use actual date when it is available.

Using your &#39;hard and fast&#39; method, the Gen 2 ITS RX-7 should weigh 2580. We have to bend when we need to bend. A &#39;formula&#39; won&#39;t work.


I understand that you are applying a different multiplier for the E36 since it "responds better" to IT prep. In my opinion, that is invalid and subjective, especially added to the fact that you use the high end of the desired power/weight scale as well.[/b]

See above. Invalid? How so? When we know what power output is attainable, is it not fair to put that into the &#39;process&#39;? We do it for many cars. Variable Valve Timing is a issue, DOHC, Rotory, etc.


How many other cars were given different multipliers than 1.25 (higher or lower)? How many other cars have been tested with Motec and all of the full prep bling that take a car from 95% prep to full bore, no excuses 100%? Who&#39;s to say that there aren&#39;t examples of RX7, Integra GSR, 240Z... that have shown similar yields, or will if prepared to the same degree?[/b]

Your whole issue is based in the assumption we don&#39;t make allowances for these things, we do.


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.[/b]

I disagree 100%. If you class cars using a strict formula (or based on an average), you will end up with HUGE disparities in potential. You are wanting to create a have and have-not world. That is not the goal. The goal was to create a &#39;process&#39; that would allow every car a chance to be competitive using a repeatable process that was the same for all. If you have a problem with it not being the same because we don&#39;t use the same &#39;multiplier&#39;, then call it what it is: Stock HP * % increase in IT prep * Target pw ratios + "adders".


If at 3050 the BMW 325 is still the best car in ITS when built to the absolute maximum, then so what? It will have been classified in the same manner, using the same math, as every other car in ITS. To me, that would be perfectly fair and the other cars in ITS would have ZERO grounds for complaint. And in my opinion, the BMW owners should have ZERO grounds for complaint or quitting either.[/b]

I agree with you 100% here except the premise for your 3050 is flawed IMHO - see above. The E46 323 at 3000lbs for example...if that car turnes out to the the King of ITS, SO BE IT!!!!! It has been through the process - the cream WILL rise to the top.


By changing the multiplier for certain cars you are opening yourselves up to crys of "foul".[/b]

You are right, and by not producing a hard and fast formula, we are in the same boat. Until you see the results (look at ITA), nobody can cry either way.

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


That is a good point, Andy. I&#39;d argue the CRB would indeed set a fresh precedent with a decision to allow both an unrestricted as well as a restricted weight for the E36, but no more than they did using an air restrictor on the E36.

I recognize that rules allowances can have unintended consequences so I&#39;m somewhat leery of opening up this precedent -- but do you see it as opening a pandora&#39;s box if an alternate weight is spec&#39;d in any situation where a restrictor is used for a PCA?

tom [/b]

I personally don&#39;t see it as a problem. I would like to test the precedent actually.

[Greg Krom]

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

[/b]

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&#39;t believe that it is proof one car responds better to IT mods than another.

To Andy&#39;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&#39;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.

[lateapex911]

......, you&#39;d have never allowed your mouth to write checks your ass can&#39;t cash. You&#39;d have known full well that making declarative statements about how the SIR would function without testing first was a bad move. It&#39;s a shame that you lack the brass to accept the proper responsibility for those statements. Frankly, your unwillingness to even attempt to do the right thing - to accept some responsibility and try to STOP the implementation of the rule change indicates to me that fairness is indeed not what you seek. Instead you&#39;ve simply shrugged and pointed the finger at Finch and CRB. .......................................... Frankly, it is clear that all is lost at this point. The rule is promulgated and the date certain set. I would love to be wrong, but am convinced that the E36 325 is dead in ITS as a competitive car. You win, Andy. The RX7 will again be dominant...until Glenn Yi sells the two 944&#39;s he&#39;s got, at which point this will all begin again with the 944 squarely in your sights.
[/b]

This has, to be honest, got to be one of the most slanderous posts yet, and considering the thread, that is indeed saying something.


Frankly, your unwillingness to even attempt to do the right thing - to accept some responsibility and try to STOP the implementation of the rule change indicates to me that fairness is indeed not what you seek. [/b]

You have NO idea...NONE..zero, zilch, NADA what you are saying. You have NO idea how Andy has been the single most involved participant on the ITAC in demanding numbers, in moving implementation dates and so on. I can say with 100% certainty, that this solution is NOT what he wanted and NOBODY will deny that...nobody on the ITAC, or the CRB. You have no concept of how hard he has fought to be fair to all the E36 guys.

Statements like that are COMPLETELY unacceptable, and are COMPLETELY without grounds. You have even been told, by the Vice Chair of the CRB, that Andy has acted properly, and that the design of the system, of course, is such to eliminate the possibility that one person could act in an self serving manner.

Further, you have NO proof that the E36 is "dead" as you put it. Can you predict the future???? Have you seen what Chets car, for instance, can do with a 29mm SIR??? NO, of course you haven&#39;t.



You win, Andy. The RX7 will again be dominant...until Glenn Yi sells the two 944&#39;s he&#39;s got, at which point this will all begin again with the 944 squarely in your sights.[/b]

And this statement is truely disgusting and without a shred of integrity. Have you read the millions of words posted on the workings of the ITAC and the CRB...have you noticed that the 944s got a recent weight BREAK!?!?? You either don&#39;t care, and are just here to try to rattle the cages of a volunteer staff, and one that, I might add, has recieved numerous acolades for their &#39;progressive thinking&#39; and &#39;unity of direction&#39;. Or you are just ignoring the truth. What an absurd statement that is. If you really believe that this is the case, you are a delusional little guy hiding under tin foil....very sad.

Statements like those are just plain unacceptable, and are character attacks.
I am sorry to the rest of the debaters of this thread, but my integrity can not stand by and allow those to go unanswered.