It's May 1st...How's your SIR???

[buldogge]

Well... Anyone have any input/info/results/dyno runs to share?

Whatta ya got???

[mlytle]

Well... Anyone have any input/info/results/dyno runs to share?

Whatta ya got???
[/b]

sorry, no results here. ran my last scca its race yesterday...off to bmwcca.

someone else brought an sir to the track. held it in my hands. it felt cold, dead....EVIL! ;-)

marshall

[buldogge]

Well... Good luck Marshall.

What cams did you decide to go with?

BTW...Since you won't be running ITS anymore would you care to share your dyno numbers by PM (if you don't mind)?

TIA



sorry, no results here. ran my last scca its race yesterday...off to bmwcca.

someone else brought an sir to the track. held it in my hands. it felt cold, dead....EVIL! ;-)

marshall
[/b]

[seckerich]

sorry, no results here. ran my last scca its race yesterday...off to bmwcca.

someone else brought an sir to the track. held it in my hands. it felt cold, dead....EVIL! ;-)

marshall
[/b]
How many races have you run with this car in ITS?

[dj10]

someone else brought an sir to the track. held it in my hands. it felt cold, dead....EVIL! ;-)
marshall
[/b]

Marshall, are you sure that was the SIR you were holding? :D

[22timber]

Dan, since I think it was yours, I hope it was your SIR :D

[mlytle]

Well... Good luck Marshall.

What cams did you decide to go with?

BTW...Since you won't be running ITS anymore would you care to share your dyno numbers by PM (if you don't mind)?

TIA
[/b]

decided to just run bmwcca in ITS trim (minus restrictor plate) for this summer. will change the car over next winter...unless it looks like the scca ITR class actually will happen.

will pm ya.




How many races have you run with this car in ITS?
[/b]
hi steve,
two full MARRS seasons at ten races a season on this car. only missed one weekend i think.

will be down at vir for the sarrc/marrs event...running the same car in ITE. i must be a fool to do it though after the carnage of ITS running with GT1, GT2, ITE, T2 and ITE at MARRS 1 yesterday. sheesh, i'd rather run with the spec miata's...much more sane group. dj and i didn't exactly have a lot of racing fun, nor will the body repair we both now have to do be fun.

[dj10]

will be down at vir for the sarrc/marrs event...running the same car in ITE. i must be a fool to do it though after the carnage of ITS running with GT1, GT2, ITE, T2 and ITE at MARRS 1 yesterday. sheesh, i'd rather run with the spec miata's...much more sane group. dj and i didn't exactly have a lot of racing fun, nor will the body repair we both now have to do be fun. [/quote]

Marshall, VIR will be ok for you to run ITE. IMO. I'm worried again because of the SIR and what it might do to my gearing.

[Bill Miller]

decided to just run bmwcca in ITS trim (minus restrictor plate) for this summer. will change the car over next winter...unless it looks like the scca ITR class actually will happen.

will pm ya.
hi steve,
two full MARRS seasons at ten races a season on this car. only missed one weekend i think.

will be down at vir for the sarrc/marrs event...running the same car in ITE. i must be a fool to do it though after the carnage of ITS running with GT1, GT2, ITE, T2 and ITE at MARRS 1 yesterday. sheesh, i'd rather run with the spec miata's...much more sane group. dj and i didn't exactly have a lot of racing fun, nor will the body repair we both now have to do be fun.
[/b]


Marshall,

Which of the listed sanctioning body's rules does an ITS E36 conform to?

[seckerich]

Marshall,

Which of the listed sanctioning body's rules does an ITS E36 conform to?
[/b]
See You at VIR then. It can run ITE as an Ex Grand Am Cup or Ex World Challenge.

[Andy Bettencourt]

NASA has the new PT class that IT cars can fit in. Not 100% competitive but not horrible either from what I can read into the rules.

Andy 'Fingers crossed for ITR" Bettencourt

[Bill Miller]

See You at VIR then. It can run ITE as an Ex Grand Am Cup or Ex World Challenge.
[/b]

I understand that Steve, but does an ITS E36 meet the GAC or WC rules?

[seckerich]

I understand that Steve, but does an ITS E36 meet the GAC or WC rules?
[/b]
You could actually do more in GAC as they allow seam welding. Stock tank is good as well as suspension and cage rules. World Challenge allows more in the way of cells and gutting but it is not required. I can see no problem with crossover. Our GAC RX8's are pretty close to IT with a few exceptions.

[dj10]

I understand that Steve, but does an ITS E36 meet the GAC or WC rules? [/b]

I
T
Everything

[mlytle]

Marshall,

Which of the listed sanctioning body's rules does an ITS E36 conform to?
[/b]

none. i planned on asking the ite rules committee to accept bmwclub racing as the sanctioning body. several others already run in that config. nobody seems to care. the new ite class rep is ed york, another its bmw ex-patriot. running a vette now, but definitely sympathetic to the bmw issue....

if someone in ite makes a stink about a ex-its bmw running with them (or beating most of them again) i will just say bye-bye to scca altogether (in this car). still toying with srx7 instead.

[seckerich]

none. i planned on asking the ite rules committee to accept bmwclub racing as the sanctioning body. several others already run in that config. nobody seems to care. the new ite class rep is ed york, another its bmw ex-patriot. running a vette now, but definitely sympathetic to the bmw issue....

if someone in ite makes a stink about a ex-its bmw running with them (or beating most of them again) i will just say bye-bye to scca altogether (in this car). still toying with srx7 instead.
[/b]
Did you say RX7?? Walk towards the light!! :happy204:

[mlytle]

Did you say RX7?? Walk towards the light!! :happy204:
[/b]

damn, was hoping no one would notice that..... B)
local srx7 crowd is doing the hard sell and even has a car lined up for me. actually drove one at the arrc last year. hmmm, let's see..i can put an sir (and make it work) in the bmw, or buy an entire srx7 race car for the same price..... :D

[Banzai240]

So... Has anyone actually TRIED racing with an SIR on an E36, or are you guys so afraid to have to actually compete with the other cars on equal footing that you have decided just to jump ship based on speculation and here-say???

Just thought I'd ask...

I'm curious as to how the reaction might have differed had we just made the car weight 3200lbs...

Something tells me NOT that much different... :rolleyes:

[dj10]

So... Has anyone actually TRIED racing with an SIR on an E36, or are you guys so afraid to have to actually compete with the other cars on equal footing that you have decided just to jump ship based on speculation and here-say???

Just thought I'd ask...

I'm curious as to how the reaction might have differed had we just made the car weight 3200lbs...

Something tells me NOT that much different... :rolleyes: [/b]

I just got off the dyno with the SIR :unsure: , will be racing @ VIR next weekend with (legal E36) a lot of the guys that post here. I'm sure you get a full report.

[robits325is]

So... Has anyone actually TRIED racing with an SIR on an E36, or are you guys so afraid to have to actually compete with the other cars on equal footing that you have decided just to jump ship based on speculation and here-say???

Just thought I'd ask...

I'm curious as to how the reaction might have differed had we just made the car weight 3200lbs...

Something tells me NOT that much different... :rolleyes:
[/b]
We have a double at Pocono next weekend - there are at least two E-36 attending. We'll see how it goes.

[mlytle]

So... Has anyone actually TRIED racing with an SIR on an E36, or are you guys so afraid to have to actually compete with the other cars on equal footing that you have decided just to jump ship based on speculation and here-say???

Just thought I'd ask...

I'm curious as to how the reaction might have differed had we just made the car weight 3200lbs...

Something tells me NOT that much different... :rolleyes:
[/b]

nice obnoxious way to ask the question. sheesh.
jumped ship because i don't want to spend thousands of dollars and hours of track time figuring out how to go slower.

[Banzai240]

jumped ship because i don't want to spend thousands of dollars and hours of track time figuring out how to go slower.
[/b]

I wasn't trying to be obnoxious... I was trying to be a dick... :023:


What ever happened to figuring out how to DRIVE the car faster?? The rest of us have been having to do that to overcome the extreme deficit that has existed in ITS for the past 7 or 8 years... You should try it... it's FUN!

To the rest of you who are doing actual testing... Good or bad... do please give us a full report... This type of information is rare, and invaluable in getting things "right"...

Thanks,

[steve s]

we did some testing with the SIR. go to S.E. div. forum . topic , 1.8 miata at roebling .
you'll find my report about the SIR. ithink the post speaks for itself. i asked a question at the end and the post went dead, so i guess the results from scca's testing would not be seen as promised :dead_horse: .

[dspillrat]

Hi Guys,
Hearing of the struggles of the E36 drivers trying to find ways to be competitive, my first knee jerk reaction is basically, "BoutTime". Sitting back and listening to many of the 325 guys heading off to greener pastures due to the SIR choking'em down to 158-165 RWHP tells me that you guys were making quite a bit more then the 180-185 RWHP claimed by several drivers.
160 ain't gonna get it....in ITA..... :(

The SCCA needs to spend some money and do some real research on the effects SIR before implementing anymore diameters....or just make the car weigh what it should have when originally classified....

I enjoy being a perceived underdog on the track with my 30 year old Z, but feel that newer cars should have advantages due to advances in technology.

This weekend at VIR should be interesting to watch....

David Spillman

[Andy Bettencourt]

David,

The ITAC recommended the wieght change and the CRB went with the SIR. Nothing we (the ITAC) can do now - trust me, I have been as loud as I can be.

As far as power numbers...This thing should grab between 18-19whp. If you are running top prep, you will be MORE THAN fine. If you are a mid-prep level driver, then this will hurt you a lot. Some say no more than adding 300lbs to the car at the same prep level but...

How does 2750lbs and no SIR's or FPR's sound? Send in a note of support for ITR!!! Ron and Jeff have done a great job on this concept and it just may gain some steam with the CRB.

AB

[dj10]

As far as power numbers...This thing should grab between 18-19whp. If you are running top prep, you will be MORE THAN fine. If you are a mid-prep level driver, then this will hurt you a lot. Some say no more than adding 300lbs to the car at the same prep level but...

How does 2750lbs and no SIR's or FPR's sound? Send in a note of support for ITR!!! Ron and Jeff have done a great job on this concept and it just may gain some steam with the CRB.

AB [/b]

AB, dyno is one thing, if I run this coming weekend and I find I have to change gear ratios because of what the SIR has done to the power band, it becomes a whole different ballgame. I have come this far, now it's wait and see.

Has anyone submitted the ITR class to the CRB?

[JeffYoung]

DJ, I would suggest that every top prepped car has to change rear end gear rations to be competitive on the various tracks we run in the SEDiv. We all have to do it, why not BMWs??

There has been initial converstations with the powers that be about ITR. I have my fingers crossed that it will come to be, perhaps as early as next year.

2750 with no restrictor sound good? Your competition will be MUCH faster (Z32 300ZX, 968, 4th Gen Supra, etc.).......

[dspillrat]

DJ, I would suggest that every top prepped car has to change rear end gear rations to be competitive on the various tracks we run in the SEDiv. We all have to do it, why not BMWs??

[/b]

Yep....I'm not even in the "top prepped class" ....just in the WOMCAWC. work on my car all weekend class...
Multiple diffs as should all have

3.36 welded...Lowes
3.7 Quaife...VIR, Roebling
3.9 Disc......Road Atlanta
4.3 Quaife...Kershaw..CMP

But seriously....If in fact these cars "E-36" have been rendered impotent w/the SIRs...I to will cry foul.

Course it'll take a few laps on the track to believe this impotent claim. :eclipsee_steering:

David Spillman

[dj10]

DJ, I would suggest that every top prepped car has to change rear end gear rations to be competitive on the various tracks we run in the SEDiv. We all have to do it, why not BMWs??

There has been initial converstations with the powers that be about ITR. I have my fingers crossed that it will come to be, perhaps as early as next year.

2750 with no restrictor sound good? Your competition will be MUCH faster (Z32 300ZX, 968, 4th Gen Supra, etc.)....... [/b]

I found my gears were good for Mid O, Watkins Glen, Road Atlanta, Summit Point, Nelson Ledges, Beaver Run & I was counting on them being good for VIr, but I'll see with the SIR.

As for ITR as long as the car are equal hp/wt :cavallo: bring them on! There better be stipulations for comp adjustments because, no way are you guys going to get it right the 1st time. This class better not turn into a another ITE. Just a word of caution :D .

[Bill Miller]

As for ITR as long as the car are equal hp/wt :cavallo: bring them on! There better be stipulations for comp adjustments because, no way are you guys going to get it right the 1st time. This class better not turn into a another ITE. Just a word of caution :D .
[/b]

Pretty safe to say that if ITR happens, it will be one more class in the IT category, and will not have any 'special treatment' like comp. adjustments, that the other classes don't have. Figure it'll get wider wheels, but that's about it.

BTW dj, thanks for the vote of confidence.

[mlytle]

I wasn't trying to be obnoxious... I was trying to be a dick... :023:
What ever happened to figuring out how to DRIVE the car faster?? The rest of us have been having to do that to overcome the extreme deficit that has existed in ITS for the past 7 or 8 years... You should try it... it's FUN!



Thanks,
[/b]

yet another moronic comment.

now you are saying bmw drivers haven't been trying to drive faster all along? spare us your drivel.

[dj10]

BTW dj, thanks for the vote of confidence. [/b]

Confidence like Respect is earned. B)

[seckerich]

Yep....I'm not even in the "top prepped class" ....just in the WOMCAWC. work on my car all weekend class...
Multiple diffs as should all have

3.36 welded...Lowes
3.7 Quaife...VIR, Roebling
3.9 Disc......Road Atlanta
4.3 Quaife...Kershaw..CMP

But seriously....If in fact these cars "E-36" have been rendered impotent w/the SIRs...I to will cry foul.

Course it'll take a few laps on the track to believe this impotent claim. :eclipsee_steering:

David Spillman
[/b]
Same boat as you David, I am on gearset #4 in the RX7 this year. Seems like it changes every track to stay up front. Same crying we heard with the flat plate--I will keep an open mind until we see some results.

[Banzai240]

now you are saying bmw drivers haven't been trying to drive faster all along? spare us your drivel.
[/b]

I'm saying that boneyard heads and stock bottom ends ain't going to do it anymore... Not making this up... Not hypothetical... review previous threads on the topic... Which indicates that winning is almost given, even with an 8/10ths effort... Which implies that you don't necessarily have to be the best driver on the block to win in a Pre-Adjusted ITS E36... Now you'll have to step up to the plate...

Anyone whose been watching BMW drivers race KNOWS they are trying to go faster... typcially, they are MANY seconds a lap faster... :rolleyes:

[RANT MODE]
And Spare me the woe-is-me sob stories about how unfair the BMW is being treated... I suppose you would have been one of those that would have preferred to weight 3200lbs? Think of all the pieces of the puzzle that would have been affected had that been the course taken... You suppose the "expense" of the SIR is equal to the costs in tires/brakes/wear and tear on your car at 3200lbs?

For those of us who fought to do something to correct the overdog problem WITHOUT making the BMW uncompetitive... your bitching and moaning is a slap in the face and an insult... The CRB and the ITAC, regardless of which method was being supported, have talked about NOTHING less than trying to get the ITS class balanced WITHOUT making anyone uncompetitive (which is redundant, since "balanced" implies that everyone is competitive...)...

I don't give a rats A$$ if you agree with the methods being tried, but to suggest that anything but the best intentions were at hand is childish and uninformed... If the SIR doesn't work the first time out, the CRB has shown it's willingness to make the corrections necessary to get things right...

As people have suggested before, it can be considered a GIFT that the BMW E36 doesn't weigh 3200lbs right now. Accept it, test it, and report back the results with FACTS and DATA... Otherwise, you are no more "right" than we are...

Or... you can run off and leave the SCCA to run with another organization, and essentially admit that you can't make the cut in a heads up situation... Perhaps you aren't quite the driver you think you are??
[/RAND MODE]

[JeffYoung]

David, Steve, what I am learning is that since I don't have a 1:1 5th gear and since I don't have a hp/wt ratio that allows me to "cover" under prepping the car, I too am going to have to run at least two rear end gears. Complicating the matter is the fact that my car doesn't, won't and can't rev much past 5500 rpm. So, I'm long at a TALLLLL ratio for Lowe's and VIR (3.08) and a shorter one for Roebling and CMP (3.45). A 3.9 would be better for CMP but then I'd need three rear ends ..... plus Quaife (only solution for my car other than welding) means about $1500 to $1800 per rear end.

Sheesh! And these guys are complaining about dyno time to tune their SIR! DJ, Marshall, come join the fun!

David, do you mix and match welded vs. Quaife LSDs on the car? Do you have to change the spring rates all around when you do?

DJ, I'll send you the ITR spreadsheet if you send me your e-mail (or did you already?). If you did, my apologies. You are correct, we won't get the hp/wt on all cars right the first time, which is why the PCA adjustment mechanism in the first year that is now allowed by the ITCS is such a huge deal and a big plus that the ITAC got for us. It allows them to fix any errors we make in eyeballing this class from the start (although it is eyeballing using the IT formula). ITR should be fun -- and my comment above about the E36 can be misinterpreted -- I think at 2750 it should be competitive. Its competition will be, as I said, much faster, but what I meant is much faster than what you are dealing with in ITS right now.

In fact, if this goes through, you are going to go from being one of the heaviest cars with the most power and torque to one of the lighest with less power and torque than most. Should be interesting.

Seriously guys, see you at VIR. Hope we get to actually talk about stuff other than the SIR, and actually have some fun.

[seckerich]

David, Steve, what I am learning is that since I don't have a 1:1 5th gear and since I don't have a hp/wt ratio that allows me to "cover" under prepping the car, I too am going to have to run at least two rear end gears. Complicating the matter is the fact that my car doesn't, won't and can't rev much past 5500 rpm. So, I'm long at a TALLLLL ratio for Lowe's and VIR (3.08) and a shorter one for Roebling and CMP (3.45). A 3.9 would be better for CMP but then I'd need three rear ends ..... plus Quaife (only solution for my car other than welding) means about $1500 to $1800 per rear end.

Sheesh! And these guys are complaining about dyno time to tune their SIR! DJ, Marshall, come join the fun!

David, do you mix and match welded vs. Quaife LSDs on the car? Do you have to change the spring rates all around when you do?

DJ, I'll send you the ITR spreadsheet if you send me your e-mail (or did you already?). If you did, my apologies. You are correct, we won't get the hp/wt on all cars right the first time, which is why the PCA adjustment mechanism in the first year that is now allowed by the ITCS is such a huge deal and a big plus that the ITAC got for us. It allows them to fix any errors we make in eyeballing this class from the start (although it is eyeballing using the IT formula). ITR should be fun -- and my comment above about the E36 can be misinterpreted -- I think at 2750 it should be competitive. Its competition will be, as I said, much faster, but what I meant is much faster than what you are dealing with in ITS right now.

In fact, if this goes through, you are going to go from being one of the heaviest cars with the most power and torque to one of the lighest with less power and torque than most. Should be interesting.

Seriously guys, see you at VIR. Hope we get to actually talk about stuff other than the SIR, and actually have some fun.
[/b]
I know you do not run telemetry Jeff, but you have to gear to be fast where it matters most. Drop by at VIR and we can look at the numbers for your car and see what happens. And Quaife is not your only option. :rolleyes:

[dj10]

Sheesh! And these guys are complaining about dyno time to tune their SIR! DJ, Marshall, come join the fun!

DJ, I'll send you the ITR spreadsheet if you send me your e-mail (or did you already?). If you did, my apologies. You are correct, we won't get the hp/wt on all cars right the first time, which is why the PCA adjustment mechanism in the first year that is now allowed by the ITCS is such a huge deal and a big plus that the ITAC got for us. It allows them to fix any errors we make in eyeballing this class from the start (although it is eyeballing using the IT formula). ITR should be fun -- and my comment above about the E36 can be misinterpreted -- I think at 2750 it should be competitive. Its competition will be, as I said, much faster, but what I meant is much faster than what you are dealing with in ITS right now.

In fact, if this goes through, you are going to go from being one of the heaviest cars with the most power and torque to one of the lighest with less power and torque than most. Should be interesting.

Seriously guys, see you at VIR. Hope we get to actually talk about stuff other than the SIR, and actually have some fun.

[/b]

PCA adjustment mechanism in the first year that is now allowed by the ITCS is such a huge deal and a big plus that the ITAC got for us.

Are you telling me you never had this before!!?
I have no option but to talk about the SIR, since I'm running one. No matter what I'm planning on having a good time, meeting most of you and learning the track again after 20 +yrs.
I wasn't complaining about dyno time with the SIR, I was just making a statement.

[Bill Miller]

PCA adjustment mechanism in the first year that is now allowed by the ITCS is such a huge deal and a big plus that the ITAC got for us.

Are you telling me you never had this before!!?
I have no option but to talk about the SIR, since I'm running one. No matter what I'm planning on having a good time, meeting most of you and learning the track again after 20 +yrs.
I wasn't complaining about dyno time with the SIR, I was just making a statement.
[/b]


dj,

I'll have to pull out an old ITCS, but I think there was language in there that allowed changes to a car's specifications w/in the first year (i.e. changing the weight). However, I don't think it was used, as it was viewed as a comp. adjustment, which were explicitly prohibited. IIRC, the initial change in the E36 weight from 2850# to 2950# actually fell w/in the allowed adjustment window. Why that wasn't cited, we will probably never know.

[dj10]

dj,

I'll have to pull out an old ITCS, but I think there was language in there that allowed changes to a car's specifications w/in the first year (i.e. changing the weight). However, I don't think it was used, as it was viewed as a comp. adjustment, which were explicitly prohibited. IIRC, the initial change in the E36 weight from 2850# to 2950# actually fell w/in the allowed adjustment window. Why that wasn't cited, we will probably never know. [/b]

Bill, this was a complaint of mine. Since I was new to ITS I didn't know all of this shit was going on with the BMW. I figured that the E36 325 was running for some years everything was ok with it. (I didn't know about this forum then). Little did I know. :(

[mlytle]

I'm saying that boneyard heads and stock bottom ends ain't going to do it anymore... Not making this up... Not hypothetical... review previous threads on the topic... Which indicates that winning is almost given, even with an 8/10ths effort... Which implies that you don't necessarily have to be the best driver on the block to win in a Pre-Adjusted ITS E36... Now you'll have to step up to the plate...

Anyone whose been watching BMW drivers race KNOWS they are trying to go faster... typcially, they are MANY seconds a lap faster... :rolleyes:

[RANT MODE]
And Spare me the woe-is-me sob stories about how unfair the BMW is being treated... I suppose you would have been one of those that would have preferred to weight 3200lbs? Think of all the pieces of the puzzle that would have been affected had that been the course taken... You suppose the "expense" of the SIR is equal to the costs in tires/brakes/wear and tear on your car at 3200lbs?

For those of us who fought to do something to correct the overdog problem WITHOUT making the BMW uncompetitive... your bitching and moaning is a slap in the face and an insult... The CRB and the ITAC, regardless of which method was being supported, have talked about NOTHING less than trying to get the ITS class balanced WITHOUT making anyone uncompetitive (which is redundant, since "balanced" implies that everyone is competitive...)...

I don't give a rats A$$ if you agree with the methods being tried, but to suggest that anything but the best intentions were at hand is childish and uninformed... If the SIR doesn't work the first time out, the CRB has shown it's willingness to make the corrections necessary to get things right...

As people have suggested before, it can be considered a GIFT that the BMW E36 doesn't weigh 3200lbs right now. Accept it, test it, and report back the results with FACTS and DATA... Otherwise, you are no more "right" than we are...

Or... you can run off and leave the SCCA to run with another organization, and essentially admit that you can't make the cut in a heads up situation... Perhaps you aren't quite the driver you think you are??
[/RAND MODE]
[/b]

first - you are answering my emails with the accusation about low prep levels and drivers skill. do you know me or my car? under prepared cars and drivers aren't competitive in the marrs series, no matter what car they drive. i spent a lot of time optimizing my car and me to be competitive, just like the other top runners.

second - what bitching and moaning are you refering too? i made no editorial comment about sirs or any derogatory comments about the itac in the posts you are answering. nowhere did i dispute the decision. nowhere did i mention 3200lbs. nowhere did i say its shouldn't be equalized.

all you are doing is grandstanding and bringing issues long dead back to the light. what the heck for? do just like to insult bmw drivers in the bmw forum? what is your point?

to all, sorry i originally took his bait and responded honestly to his question. i have contributed to his bs and wasted your time having to read it.

[e36its]

RANT MODE[/b]Yay. Rant mode. Always a sign of helpful comments to come... :)


And Spare me the woe-is-me sob stories about how unfair the BMW is being treated...[/b]I don't like to use unfair, it's one of those terms that seems to provoke rant mode. A caution, though: be careful on the high horse, it's a long way down... I'd take a slightly different twist on the situation. If the SCCA decides that there needs to be some pseudo-formula for classification (a Process if you will) that's fine. But when the decision is made to abandon The Process and go with what's behind door C, I think one must throw away the moral superiority of hiding behind The Process. The Process might've helped to illuminate something that needed to be changed in the classification, but it sure didn't have anything to do with an SIR.

Before: BMW is an outlier. Everyone else is made to fit save the BMW.
After: BMW is an outlier. Everyone else is made to fit save the BMW, which is treated differently. Maybe better, maybe worse... but undeniably differently.


For those of us who fought to do something to correct the overdog problem WITHOUT making the BMW uncompetitive... your bitching and moaning is a slap in the face and an insult... [/b] It is? Look, I think it's possible to disagree with the outcome of a decision making process without casting aspersions on the lineage of all the people involved. Maybe we'll have to disagree on this one, but I think I can be unhappy that a 7" chunk of aluminum tube was pulled out of someone's hiney without applying a proverbial slap in your face.


I don't give a rats A$$ if you agree with the methods being tried, but to suggest that anything but the best intentions were at hand is childish and uninformed... [/b]Who ARE you talking to? It's like you're not even talking at Marshall anymore...


Or... you can run off and leave the SCCA to run with another organization, and essentially admit that you can't make the cut in a heads up situation... Perhaps you aren't quite the driver you think you are?? [/b]Rant mode didn't disappoint... it's been many years since I've seen a well-executed playground "neener-neener" taunt. Nicely done.

Maybe, just maybe, leaving the SCCA is a sign that a decision making process is kinda broken since the powers that be view dissent as "a slap in the face" and "woe is me sob stories", not to mention "bitching and moaning"? Perhaps an organization that would "give a rat's a$$"?

Sheesh.

tom

[Bill Miller]

Before: BMW is an outlier. Everyone else is made to fit save the BMW.
After: BMW is an outlier. Everyone else is made to fit save the BMW, which is treated differently. Maybe better, maybe worse... but undeniably differently.[/b]

Pretty much sums it up.

[Banzai240]

Rant mode didn't disappoint... it's been many years since I've seen a well-executed playground "neener-neener" taunt. Nicely done.
[/b]

Seemed to fit right in with the "I'm going to take my ball and go home..." attitude expressed in the trigger post...



Perhaps an organization that would "give a rat's a$$"?

Sheesh.

tom
[/b]

Exactly WHAT do you want us to give a rat's... about?? Are you suggesting that the SCCA hasn't been trying to do this the RIGHT way?

NO car in the history of IT... NOT even the 1st Gen RX-7, has gotten as much attention... has gotten as much discussion... has had as many angles analyzed... had as MUCH DATA gathered... as the BMW E36 in ITS... The result of which was four choices... 1) Leave the car as it is and watch the rest of ITS dwindle helplessly away due to lack of competitiveness... 2) Try to speed EVERYONE else up... 3) Adjust the classification weight of the car to be more appropriate to it's output... 4) Restrict the output to be more appropriate to the car's current weight...

You tell ME what the right answer would have been, knowing that in IT the ONLY way to speed up ... Lay out exactly how you would have wanted us to CARE more about this issue.... Tell us... Just what is it that you see us NOT caring about?

Yah... I went on an attacking rant... pretty childish looking back on it... but I'm SICK of these attitudes of people who presume that THEY know the answers, and everyone else is an idiot, incapable, or otherwise incompetent...

The boards and committees that are working these issues (CRB, BoD, ACs, etc.) DO give a rip what happens... and no group cares as much as the current ITAC cares... So excuse me if, after all the effort we've put into this class, we, or at least I, take offense to the accusations and mis-informed non-sense that get's thrown our way...

You may consider getting the facts of the situation out into the open a waste of time... I think it's important for people to understand that this organization is run by people who DO CARE, who ARE working for the betterment of the class, etc... And again... I am completely confident that, if WE made the wrong choice on this car, or need to make a correction to get it "right"... it will be done... Until that is proven, however, again... you are no more "right" than we are...

Oh, and one more thing... the Process says the car should weigh approx. 3200lbs... That would put it in target wt/pwr ratio... If you want to keep the car at 2850lbs... the only option is to work the other part of the ratio, which is the "pwr"... That is what the CRB elected to do, and it's a valid, albiet unpopular, way to get to the SAME outcome... which is a wt/pwr ratio that is at the target for ITS... PCAs allow for weight or restrictors... so everything that has been done within the current IT procedures... The PROCESS is used to determine what a car should weight for a given class... Application of PCA adjustments additionally allow for the restrictor... Again... either way accomplishes the same goal.

In my opinion, if the SIR can be made to work as it's intended... then it's the better option for this car, as it keeps the weight very reasonable for the class...

But, believe as you will...

Sorry for "wasting" more of you time...

[dj10]

Before: BMW is an outlier. Everyone else is made to fit save the BMW.
After: BMW is an outlier. Everyone else is made to fit save the BMW, which is treated differently. Maybe better, maybe worse... but undeniably differently.
tom
[/b]

After: BMW is an outlier. Everyone else is made to fit save the BMW, which is treated differently. Maybe better, maybe worse... but undeniably differently.

Yep, we are. We are the giunea pigs, I'll bet you a dime to a donut we are the 1st of things to come. IMO



You guys need to take a pill & chill. :D

[Z3_GoCar]

I hope John Norris posts soon....

When I taked to him on Saturday morning, yeah, from the Dyno the hp did drop to the levels discussed. Even so, I watch the race on Saturday and :happy204:
Now maybe the results were due to the short track at BW, or John just knows how to drive :P

On a less happy note, I heard that there was an accident on hwy 5 comming home. I only briefly meet Hans. My prayers are with him, his family, and friends.

James

John,

You've known Kevin longer than I have. I'll never forget him telling me, " Oh My G Hans is dead I can't believe it!" I wan't sure who Kevin was talking about, but I definetly remember meeting Franz and seeing him around.

[dj10]

I hope John Norris posts soon....

When I taked to him on Saturday morning, yeah, from the Dyno the hp did drop to the levels discussed. Even so, I watch the race on Saturday and :happy204:
Now maybe the results were due to the short track at BW, or John just knows how to drive :P

On a less happy note, I heard that there was an accident on hwy 5 comming home. I only briefly meet Hans. My prayers are with him, his family, and friends.

James [/b]

James, I guess Hans was his crew man? John did email me and said his crew man was killed coming back from the track. I'm sure this is hard on John. :(
Ditto on the prayers.

[dspillrat]

plus Quaife (only solution for my car other than welding) means about $1500 to $1800 per rear end.

Sheesh! And these guys are complaining about dyno time to tune their SIR! DJ, Marshall, come join the fun!

David, do you mix and match welded vs. Quaife LSDs on the car? Do you have to change the spring rates all around when you do?

[/b]

I hate to highjack this thread .....I'll respond over at your Others "strange" cars section :birra:

David

[BMW RACER]

Guys.

Thanks for the thoughts and kind words.

Actually his name was Franz, but was used to being called Hans! Must be that old Hans & Franz deal.

He was a great crew person, friend and above all a great person.

I'm really going to miss him. This is hard.

I ran with the SIR I'll share info when things settle down

Thanks again.

[Banzai240]

Guys.

Thanks for the thoughts and kind words.

Actually his name was Franz, but was used to being called Hans! Must be that old Hans & Franz deal.

He was a great crew person, friend and above all a great person.

I'm really going to miss him. This is hard.

I ran with the SIR I'll share info when things settle down

Thanks again.
[/b]

You take your time John... You definately have more important matters at hand... I'm terribly sorry to hear about this tragic event... We'll keep the families in our prayers...

[JLawton]

Guys.

Thanks for the thoughts and kind words.

Actually his name was Franz, but was used to being called Hans! Must be that old Hans & Franz deal.

He was a great crew person, friend and above all a great person.

I'm really going to miss him. This is hard.

I ran with the SIR I'll share info when things settle down

Thanks again.
[/b]


John,
Very sorry to hear the news. It puts all this arguing over rules and such a little more in perspective.....

[e36its]

Seemed to fit right in with the "I'm going to take my ball and go home..." attitude expressed in the trigger post...[/b]Not sure I follow... there are E36 racers who are not convinced that the SCCA is taking the a proper direction with classifying the car. Isn't it a reasonable course of action to evaluate the venues open to the chassis and choose the one that fits best? Characterizing that as "I'm going to take my ball and go home..." seems to have more to do with how you're reading the statement than Marshall's evaluation of BMWCCA as the best fit for him given the current ruleset.


Exactly WHAT do you want us to give a rat's... about?? Are you suggesting that the SCCA hasn't been trying to do this the RIGHT way?[/b]I have not suggested that -- if I've given that impression then I apologize, publicly. I have stated that I think SCCA chose the wrong path to address this performance disparity in ITS. There's a difference.

Look, I disagree with the path we have taken with the SIR. I think reasonable well-intentioned people can disagree on the right way to solve a problem... hell, I sometimes disagree with myself on the right way to solve problems. (I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader if I could be characterized as "reasonable".) My disagreement does not imply that you're a bad person or that I'd kick your dog if we crossed paths. What I am is someone who gets irritated when an ITAC member calls my position "bitching and moaning", a "woe is me sob story", and proclaims he does not "give a rat's a$$" about the members of a member driven organization. Strikes me that all that can achieve is to make those of us who were not the puppy-punters even more unhappy with the way things have gone.

It seems like you're reacting to the bad behavior of a few but lobbing verbal grenades into the masses in response. That's just the way it's reading from these cheap seats.


He was a great crew person, friend and above all a great person.[/b]
I think that's a terrific way to eulogize someone. My condolences to his family and friends. There will be plenty of time to talk about the SIR after you've had time to deal with this terrible loss.

tom

[lateapex911]

Wow, John sorry to hear that. I hope you won his last race.

Guys, I think that Darin and you are closer to the same page than you might think, and if you sat down and had a beer it might seem clearer. Or at least you'd have a beer. ;)

What you guys don't see is the letters that the CRB and ITAC have gotten on this. The comments and accusations go way way beyond whats been said here. And the BMW board left a lasting impression as well.

Interestingly, some of the harshest critics who wrote some of the most stinging letters were people, who, when we looked at who the letter writer was, and his involvement, were often rather underprepared, and were enjoying significant success.

Darin was probably a little overstated and his comments may have been better directed at those who were the actual instegators, so to speak, but at this point in this story, I am sure it all begins to blur together about who said what. Still, I hate to see guys leave the series before understanding the real effect, but I also understand that their faith in that effect is low, and that staying is perceived as a high risk low reward scenario. I applaud the guys who have soldiered on, and Darins point about the ITAC and the CRB bending over backwards in their attempt to be fair is absolutely true.

One point missed by those who aren't BMW owners is the possible...or maybe probable need to change diff ratios. Some will point out that the rest of the class has to have a "quiver" of ratios, so it's only fair that the E36 should as well. But that ignores the fact that the top guys probably already had a quiver, and are now trying to figure out what arrows still work, and what don't. So having to do that bit of purchasing twice sucks for them.

All in all, this was a tough deal. The class had issues as it stood, and none of the solutions were pretty. In the end, it looks like everybody is grumbling ...and who knows, if thats the case, then maybe it was the best solution that could be expected.

That said, Ron Earp and Jeff Young have been doodling on cocktail napkins about a class on top of ITS, and I called them to see if the E36 could fit. Marshall helped as did DJ with some input on achevable weights when I sent them questions, and I think the concept could spell relief for the E36, perhaps as soon as 2007. Initial discussions have been productive and the class has taken shape. A preliminary proposal has been looked at by the CRB, to favorable response. Of course, theres a lot more work to do, and each step has the potential to derail the concept, but at this point in time, there is solid hope.

I am sure a well reasoned supportive letter would be a good thing if you think going fast without an SIR is better than going slow with one. But be warned....the car will have it's hands full. It's going to be a rockin class.

[Adroitracer]

Hello all!!!

I am new to the group. I recently purchased a 93 bmw 325is (with limited slip) with the intention of turning it into an ITS car. Can anyone here give me a rundown on the basics of things to do.

I have already replaced...
Shocks (went to bilstien sports for the time being) Control arms and bushings, trailing arms and bushings, sway bar bushings and links, guibo. The drivetrain looks really solid, and subframe is in tact (does not have the reinforcements installed). I am trying to get all the rules figured out before I begin making big changes to the car.

I have purchased the entire suspension and braking system (including master cylinder) from an e36 M3, but do not know which parts I can use and which I cannot. I would love to use the brakes, but from what I read we have to use the stock size rotors and master cylinder. Any advise would be very helpful.

[Bill Miller]

Hello all!!!

I am new to the group. I recently purchased a 93 bmw 325is (with limited slip) with the intention of turning it into an ITS car. Can anyone here give me a rundown on the basics of things to do.

I have already replaced...
Shocks (went to bilstien sports for the time being) Control arms and bushings, trailing arms and bushings, sway bar bushings and links, guibo. The drivetrain looks really solid, and subframe is in tact (does not have the reinforcements installed). I am trying to get all the rules figured out before I begin making big changes to the car.

I have purchased the entire suspension and braking system (including master cylinder) from an e36 M3, but do not know which parts I can use and which I cannot. I would love to use the brakes, but from what I read we have to use the stock size rotors and master cylinder. Any advise would be very helpful.
[/b]

My first piece of advice would be to get a copy of the rule book (GCR). You can buy this from the main office in Topeka, or download it from www.scca.com

Unless any of those M3 parts are also stock 325 parts, about the only thing you could use are the shocks/springs, as they're pretty much open. You definately can't use the brakes.

[Stan]

At the risk of appearing to... :dead_horse:

Darin listed four choices for dealing with the Bimmer...

1) Leave the car as it is and watch the rest of ITS dwindle helplessly away due to lack of competitiveness...
2) Try to speed EVERYONE else up...
3) Adjust the classification weight of the car to be more appropriate to it's output...
4) Restrict the output to be more appropriate to the car's current weight...[/b]
He forgot one...declassifying the 325is. However, the CRB didn't want to do that without having somewhere else to classify the car. Choice number 1 was unacceptable to the CRB and number 2 isn't practical -- you can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, so the choices boiled down to numbers 3 and 4.

While one might challenge some of the constants used in the Process Equation, to call it "pseudo" is incorrect. The equation is based on solid engineering principles and is going a long way towards regularising IT classifications. Furthermore, the Process is subject to continuing refinements that promise to make it even more accurate. In any case, IMO it is infinitely superior to the method...or should I say, lack of method previously employed.

In the end the ITAC itself could not reach a clear concensus as to whether process weight or a restricter was preferable for the 325is, and tabled the decision for the CRB to make. After considerable discussion among the CRB member, two factors tipped the scales in the direction of the SIR. First, no front runner or engine prep shop would share current dyno numbers with the CRB from which to ascertain accurate hp numbers. Second, most competitors we talked to were already down at or near the 2850 minimum weight. So the decision hovered over whether to have guys adding 350-450 lbs of ballast to their cars (depending on whose hp numbers one believed), or if we should impose an SIR to ensure hp did not exceed the target value. In the end we picked an SIR, whose size was subsequently increased after testing was done on 3 different dynos.

Is it possible we erred? Certainly. Last I looked in the mirror I was still human, and presumably capable of error. Could we have chosen weight? Sure, and I believe we would have if we'd had good hp numbers from the outset.

But IMO the real answer is to create a nationally recognised IT class where the 325is and similarly high powered touring cars can run in their own class without artificial restrictions, which is where the ITR class comes in. The Adhoc Committe is nearly ready to send up a formal proposal to create that class. If the proposal goes through, the 325is and similar cars will at long last have a class of their own. I am excited by the concept and I think the competitors will be, as well.

Cheers!

[Z3_GoCar]

So Stan,

Are you working on implementing ITR in SFR? Any chance I can get your support for ITR in Cal Club? Which run group will we run? ITE/GT/AS? or would we stay with T/IT? My angle on the SIR is that, within reason, I hope it can be made to work out. So then I can ask for my Z3 to be classed with one also. What with the Z3 being aged out in T2/ST I'd fully expect it to be classed somewhere, but as it now stands there's no where other than ITE.

James

[Stan]

James,

The proposal for ITR is to implement it as a nationally recognised IT class, in addition to the current ITS-ITC classes, so no, I am not working to implement it in SFR. ITE is recognised by numerous regions, but each has its own ITE class rules, and there is no nation-wide single set of recognised rules. I suppose that's one downside of "bottom up" class building.

If the ITR class is approved by the CRB and BoD, it will be automatically recognised by all regions, just as ITS and ITC are, for example. But as always, if the class is approved it will be up to the local regions to group it in the race group which best suits that region's needs.

Your Z3 would be an ideal candidate for the class. I suggest waiting to see if the class is approved before volunteering for an SIR -- they have not been universally well received... B)

[JeffYoung]

Interesting -- so the lack of a "top prep" dyno sheet made the power potential of the 325is an unknown for the CRB? That clears things up a bit, as it means the SIR was the ONLY way (and I still don't like the thing but at least I understand more about why it was used) to ensure an acceptable power to weight ratio.

[Bill Miller]

What else is interesting, is that you can deduce from Stan's comments, is that it's possible that the dyno sheets that the ITAC/CRB did get, were not indicitive of the max potential of the car.

[seckerich]

I would check out the Florida results from this weekend before you start talking about dead Bimmers. SIR seems to not work as well in southern climates. Moroso was a dog fight from what I hear today.

[Banzai240]

... is that it's possible that the dyno sheets that the ITAC/CRB did get, were not indicitive of the max potential of the car.
[/b]

DING-DING-DING-DING... We have a winner!

That's what we've been saying all along... The dyno sheets that we DO have, clearly show that the typical, well-preparred E36 makes 195+whp... That puts them in the 240hp range at the flywheel... Based on the prep description of these cars, along with additional dyno information that has not been seen, but has been talked about (so-and-so saw the dyno sheet of XXX and it read this...), the true potential of the car is expected to be at least 5 or 10hp more than the "official" sheets we've seen...

Simple math using the process takes over from there...

By the way... I hope you guys realize just HOW UNIQUE it is to have Stan here posting such insightful posts... You now have dialog directly with a CRB member, as well as the ITAC, and are getting more first-hand information than ever before...

I'd say that's a good thing... ;)

[gpbmw]

Just ordered and received my SIR from Raetech. Installed it using a modified Bimmerwold airbox. Car didn't run considering the air intake went from approximately 3" to 29mm. BMW is now in storage and probably for sale and will run my RX7 for the rest of the year.

[BMW RACER]

E36.
Where in relation to the air mass sensor did you mount the SIR? I attached mine to the stock rubber elbow that came off the throttle body, then mounted the Air Mass Sensor in front of that and then attached an ITG air filter to the front of the Air Mass Sensor. It's a tight squeeze but it fits.

[dj10]

E36.
Where in relation to the air mass sensor did you mount the SIR? I attached mine to the stock rubber elbow that came off the throttle body, then mounted the Air Mass Sensor in front of that and then attached an ITG air filter to the front of the Air Mass Sensor. It's a tight squeeze but it fits. [/b]

We mounted it the same as you John. Sorry for not responding to your pm, running crazy here.
Dan

[lateapex911]

Just ordered and received my SIR from Raetech. Installed it using a modified Bimmerwold airbox. Car didn't run considering the air intake went from approximately 3" to 29mm. BMW is now in storage and probably for sale and will run my RX7 for the rest of the year.
[/b]

"Didn't run"?????

Huh?

What does that mean?

and, look around a bit before you jump of the ledge. While the SIR isn't everything it's cracked up to be, it is NOT an item that kills your car! Joh Norris has hed predictable results, and I KNOW that it can be installed and make power..I have done it.

If your car "Didn't run", you have other issues.

[gpbmw]

All:

Thanks for the response in heping me to resolve the SIR issue. I'm new to the board. Here's some additional information:

I'm using a BimmerWorld airbox since BimmerWorlds built my car. The problem I have is due to the limited space. What I did was mount the SIR in the airbox and in front of the MAS. It appears this created the rough idle and caused the engine to run rich.

Thanks to your (John Norris et al) posts I can now visualize the application in a completed stage. My question to the board then becomes....Am I back to using an OE airbox since the aluminum BW box leave me space challenged...?


Gerald Potts
www.myriadracing.com
Atlanta, GA.

[lateapex911]

You were getting a turbulence related issue that affected your AFM. ( I am NO expert, but I suspect the turbulence creates areas of highhr speed, and varying pressure zones, which cool the wire at a rate not related to the actual airflow, causing the poor running, due to the ECU compensating)

Our immediate solution was to mount the SIR Downstream of the SIR. Remember, the short end of the SIR goes forward, the tapered section goes downstream.

So, the order that will work is: Open air> Filter>AFM> SIR> Intake boot> Intake> engine.

Now, the other possibility is to leave the AFM in place, and then build a longer intake tract, perhaps bending it to fit and increase the length, with a filter within, getting the SIR at the head of the tract and as far away from the AFM as possible. I understand that will work, perhaps even better, but haven't had first hand experience.

Finally, don't panic. The car WILL run, and run well. Maybe not *quite* as well as before though...which is the intent.

Now, how would you like to run your car, without ANY restriction, at around 2760 lbs?? On 8" rims??
If you like that idea, don't sell it!!!!!! Write a letter to the CRB asking them to approve the just submitted ITR Proposal. (Details on this site elsewhere)

[gpbmw]

Thanks for your help. I'm gettting close. I expect to have it running tomorrow. I'm actually getting ready for a ProIt at Road Atlanta in two weeks. I've run out of room to retain the BW airbox so my question then becomes...what type of airbox/air filter can I best utilize in place of the BW unit...?







Gerald Potts
Myriad Racing LLC
Atlanta, GA.

[lateapex911]

Can't give you specifics, but I have heard that cone filters are successful...

[dj10]

Thanks for your help. I'm gettting close. I expect to have it running tomorrow. I'm actually getting ready for a ProIt at Road Atlanta in two weeks. I've run out of room to retain the BW airbox so my question then becomes...what type of airbox/air filter can I best utilize in place of the BW unit...?
Gerald Potts
Myriad Racing LLC
Atlanta, GA. [/b]

If you pm me, I'll tell you what I use. I refuse to adverstise in public for anyone who doesn't help my effort.
dj

[Ron Earp]

Based on what Stan wrote it appears to me that some BMW owners/builders contributed to the SIR issue. If top cars (Whittel, BimmerWorld, the builder that did BimmerWorlds motors that advertised here, NE guy I can't remember, and lots others whom I don't know) had ponied up 100% full builds, full disclosure, then maybe the ITAC could have been decisive and the SIR debate avoided. Who knows, maybe they did pony up, but that isn't the impression I got from Stan and the ITAC.

I feel for the BMW folks who have to put the SIR on their cars without a lot of time for development, but by the same token with better teamwork that could have been avoided. Maybe the BMW owners couldn't realize that yes, they were going to get something added to the car, and they had some control over "what" they got depending on how they reacted. Water under the bridge and a "bad" time for IT IMHO.

I sincerely hope that BMW 325 racers will support ITR and race in that class. Unrestricted, at a lighter weight than they race now (and VERY obtainable looking at year old arguments about weight), they will fit the class well and be competitive. Plus, the 328 and 330 cars will be there too.

Ron

[kthomas]

It is not financially safe to run in IT anymore, so I suspect most of your E36 owners will not only not go to ITR, but will leave IT or SCCA altogether.

[JeffYoung]

K, is that because of the cost of having to deal with varying rules? If so, that I understand. First the FP restrictor and then the SIR.

Maybe if the SCCA shows BMW drivers a stable ruleset for a few years, they will come back.

I agree though, this is driving the E36 out, which is bad. I have yet to see an E36 BMW run in an SIR event, and only saw one (Carlos Garcia) before May 1. SARRC/MARRS was sad -- no York, no Giovannis, no Whittel, no Lytle, no Jordan, no Kleinpeter -- could name about 4-5 E36s that usually run that did not.

[kthomas]

"K, is that because of the cost of having to deal with varying rules? "

Yes. We have just set a precedent for competition adjustments. At least in a Pro series the response to adjustments can be race to race, and SCCA tech is there at every race and knows the level of prep and driver capability etc. Here, based on heresay and God knows what else, SCCA can render a car uncompetitive for a year or two before they "collect enough data" to know what they did.

For people that don't play to win- no affect. For winners, the price just went way up.

[JeffYoung]

What is your opinion (which I respect highly) on weight, the SIR and the E36? Specifically:

1. Do you believe the car was correctly classed at 2850? I don't think so but interested to hear others thoughts on this.

2. If not, was the SIR the answer? I certainly don't think so.

3. How about reclassed at 3150?

If you don't feel comfortable weighing in, I understand.

Jeff

[DoubleXL240Z]

As someone who was building an E36, its for sale now, stock!! I don't know if I'm to build a 2850 lb./SIR car or maybe just maybe a 2750 lb. ITR car, with bigger wheels? or what? and then will it happen in '07 or '08. Develope a car for this year that will be changed for next year, or turn it into a 12 month project to see if it will change next year and I'll be ready.

[lateapex911]

IF ITR is to happen, it has been proposed as a 2007 class, and the Proposal has been submitted in time for that to happen. At least on our end. No predicting how long the CRB and the BoD will take with it, nor what it might morph into is it does come to pass.

[kthomas]

What is your opinion (which I respect highly) on weight, the SIR and the E36? Specifically:

1. Do you believe the car was correctly classed at 2850? I don't think so but interested to hear others thoughts on this.

2. If not, was the SIR the answer? I certainly don't think so.

3. How about reclassed at 3150?

If you don't feel comfortable weighing in, I understand.

Jeff
[/b]

I didn't think it was correctly classed at 2850 when we were racing a 240Z. But since the class intent didn't guarantee competitiveness, we accepted that with the wide range of available cars there could, from time to time, arrive a car that would be tough to compete against. So after it became a struggle to compete against the E36 (even though we hadn't yet been beat by one) we decided to build one. So you might say the original classification of the E36 cost us a 240Z. Never really thought about the possibility of having the rules changed. Was always under the opinion that there were far too many variables (prep, driver skill) in IT for SCCA to ever make comp adjustments. That was the class we chose to run in, good or bad. Was it fair that our 240Z was rendered "uncompetitive" by the intro of the E36? You would say no, unless you remember that the class wasn't set up to be fair.

I personally don't think any adjustment should have been made, especially several years after the car is originally classed. Folks in our situation had time to change cars on their own terms, and newcomers to the class saw what was winning or not and chose to enter accordingly.

Let's say post SIR all the E36's quit winning. Then I dust of the 240Z and dominate with it again (2 ARRC's in a row before it was retired). What's to keep SCCA and the whiners from slapping a restrictor on it? Bad precedent we've set.

It would be easier to swallow if a new car was to enter the class and relegate our E36 to second. It always takes a few years for a new car to develop and show up in numbers, and gives owners of existing cars time to have options. Much harder to swallow a rule change, which overnight (relatively speaking) changes the landscape in a class where no competition adjustments has been the norm.

That's just my opinion on this whole mess. I could be wrong.

[JeffYoung]

That is the most thought out logical post on the BMW and the SIR that I've seen.

Let me just raise one point:

The 240z is, I would say, "classed correctly," meaning that its power/weight "fits" the ITAC formula. The 325is is not. Is it not acceptable to fix this issue? I understand the no guarantee of competitiveness, etc. but if it is a flat out error that renders one car an overdog, should that not be "correctable" or are we stuck with these kinds of mistakes because people (and were fully justified in doing so) relied on them?

I think that competition adjustments are bad, and I don't think there would be a risk of the ITAC slapping a restrictor on the Z car because it does fit the ITAC formula.

What really mucked this up (in my limited view) was the CRB's good intentions. They didn't want to put the weight on the car that it should have had at the start, which would have been a correction of a mistake and much easier to justify in the realm of "IT-thought." Instead, they went with the SIR, which smacks of a comeptition adjustment which is not very "IT."

I completely understand the frustration with the CRB over this, especially those guys just building 325s. They don't know what class they will be in, and whether they will be restricted or not.

One last question (again, don't answer if you don't want to): could the 325 be competitive in ITS at 3150? Would the harder on tires/brakes disadvantage it already has be exacerbated to the point that the fast RX7s would be able to beat it regularly?

[kthomas]

That is the most thought out logical post on the BMW and the SIR that I've seen.

Let me just raise one point:

The 240z is, I would say, "classed correctly," meaning that its power/weight "fits" the ITAC formula. The 325is is not. Is it not acceptable to fix this issue? I understand the no guarantee of competitiveness, etc. but if it is a flat out error that renders one car an overdog, should that not be "correctable" or are we stuck with these kinds of mistakes because people (and were fully justified in doing so) relied on them?

[edited]

One last question (again, don't answer if you don't want to): could the 325 be competitive in ITS at 3150? Would the harder on tires/brakes disadvantage it already has be exacerbated to the point that the fast RX7s would be able to beat it regularly?
[/b]

Maybe I missed it, but until very recently I didn't think "The Formula" was known by anyone other than the Comp Board. Had it been published, and the spec page for the E36 mistakenly printed with the wrong weight, and the correction made immediately, I would agree that it shoud be corrected. But a lot of folks traded/sold/built E36's long after they were inducted.

I'm sure at some tracks the E36 could race at 3150. At Road Atlanta we're already pacing the tires. And being the single biggest expense after you build the car it's not the thing I would want to punish. I really don't mind the SIR concept, but it needed real world testing by the right people. It's about lap time, not horsepower. Looking at peak power to weight, a Z beats an E36. I don't think dyno testing was the way to test it.

I'm not afraid of a fair fight, but when a crew chief and driver who have won 4 ARRC's in ITS in 2 different cars think the E36 is dead based on their tests, we (the Club) might have a problem.

[JeffYoung]

K, thanks for a thoughtful discussion. Your last point is telling. If the SIR truly did kill the BMW, then I do agree there is an issue, and I think you guys probably know better than anyone if it did.

Jeff

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think the thing that is getting by people is the fact that now that everything has been through the classification process, changes are not to be made.

We just needed a common base to start from using the same measuring stick for everyone. I am not a fan of the SIR and I do think that at 2765 and unrestricted, the E36 will be a great choice for ITR (should it go through). All of the cars proposed for ITR have gone through the process. The cream will rise to the top (I expect a ton of E36's and Integra Type R's from Honda Challenge to try it) and it cold be any car - but the bottom line is that no changes need be made because everyone started from the same baseline.

IT is not about comp adjustments. In 2007, if ITR goes through, you should see no changes to classifications for a long, long time (and I can't think of when that would happen). Again, all the recent activity has been to establish a baseline for us all to move forward on even footing.

AB

[Fastfred92]

The e36 325 is DEAD in ITS.......... R.I.P. e36 325! Lets just move on. SIR is not the solution and not to blame the "process" but unless we KNOW the power part of power to weight we dont have a process. All this myth about 325's and their dyno numbers is murky at best, same goes for RX7 numbers. I understand that the process sets the table and the actual results verify that the process is correct but I also think it is telling that Chet is not running his "public enemy # 1 325 " this year... Good luck to Carlos or DJ or whoever fights on but I think it is clear that the e36 325 will not survive in ITS. Chalk one up to the RX7 guys, they won this one.

Letter supporting ITR..... Sent!

[gpeluso]

The e36 325 is DEAD in ITS.......... R.I.P. e36 325! Lets just move on. SIR is not the solution and not to blame the "process" but unless we KNOW the power part of power to weight we dont have a process. All this myth about 325's and their dyno numbers is murky at best, same goes for RX7 numbers. I understand that the process sets the table and the actual results verify that the process is correct but I also think it is telling that Chet is not running his "public enemy # 1 325 " this year... Good luck to Carlos or DJ or whoever fights on but I think it is clear that the e36 325 will not survive in ITS. Chalk one up to the RX7 guys, they won this one.

Letter supporting ITR..... Sent!
[/b]

FRED,

I'M WITH YOU. THE BIGGER PROBLEM IS THAT IN ITR THE 325 IS NOT GOING TO BE A CONTENDER. A PREPPED M3 WILL BEAT A 325 6 DAYS A WEEK AND TWICE ON SUNDAY. THE 325 WILL HAVE NO WHERE TO GO IN SCCA. ITR IS NO ANSWER FOR THE 325. 325 R.I.P.

GREG

[GKR_17]

I think the thing that is getting by people is the fact that now that everything has been through the classification process, changes are not to be made.
[/b]

Are you willing to bet your ITAC seat on that statement? As you yourself have stated, not every car has been through 'the process'. And then there's the talk of revising the process (FWD), which I believe you also support.

As for the SIR issue, my take is the E36 will be more competitive in ITS with the restrictor, than in ITR at a lower (up 15lbs from last I heard) weight. Sure the E36 will be fast initially in ITR, but I doubt it will be close once the others have had time to complete a good build. My hope now is that we won't be forced to move to ITR, since we've invested a lot to make the best of this situation.

Grafton

[Andy Bettencourt]

Are you willing to bet your ITAC seat on that statement? As you yourself have stated, not every car has been through 'the process'. And then there's the talk of revising the process (FWD), which I believe you also support.

As for the SIR issue, my take is the E36 will be more competitive in ITS with the restrictor, than in ITR at a lower (up 15lbs from last I heard) weight. Sure the E36 will be fast initially in ITR, but I doubt it will be close once the others have had time to complete a good build. My hope now is that we won't be forced to move to ITR, since we've invested a lot to make the best of this situation.

Grafton
[/b]

I am a supporter (in fact, I am the guy who developed a proposal all on my own for ITAC consideration to which I presented to them on a con-call) of continued evaluation of the classes. This is not a car-specific comp-adjustment. It's a category wide look at why FWD in ITS isn't a legitimate choice. I think it's becuase the 'adders' that work so well in A, B and C are mitigated by higher weights and hp levels in ITS. I proposed a new set of adders for FWD cars in ITS. IMHO, the cars make MUCH more sense in my hypothetical model. The higher hp ones would be candidates for ITR (Preludes).

I admit there have been many changes over the past couple of years. The goal is to get a process firmed up, and as 'right' as we can. If the E46 323 is the new top dog in ITS, so be it. She has been through the meatgrinder and she is what she is.

As for betting my ITAC seat - only if YOU take it when I am gone. Then you'll get to see things from all points of veiw.

AB

[Z3_GoCar]

I wouldn't declare the e-36 325i dead just yet. After watching John Norris win on Saturday May 5th, and the growing gap between him and the Rx-7's. The only car that was in front of him was a T-1 Vette, and not long at that as the Vette offed due to lap traffic. In the end John had about 1/2 a lap on the next car. Next weekend will be the Fontana roval, where Hp is king, I suspose this will be the real test. But after watching the results from earlier this month, I'm sure John has a plan and will collect another checkered. So my question is if the 325 still proves to be unbeatable, will the SIR be adjusted down? I'm sure I already know the answer.

James

[GKR_17]

If the E46 323 is the new top dog in ITS, so be it. She has been through the meatgrinder and she is what she is.
[/b]

Since you bring that one up...

First let's take the E36:
189hp x 1.3 x 12.9 = 3170 lbs.
30 lbs of adders to get 3200, though a more quoted final unrestricted weight is 3150.

Now E46:
168hp x 1.3 x 12.9 = 2817 lbs.
Spec weight: 3000 lbs. (adders = 183 lbs.)

I would have expected the adders to be nearly identical for these two cars. Is the VANOS on the exhaust worth over 100 lbs? I assumed the E46 weight (pre process) was set on the high side to avoid controversy similar to that plauging the E36.

At 3000 lbs. I don't expect many E46 front runners. That said, I'm not really pushing to reduce its weight, anyone building one knows what they're getting into. The same applies to those not building E46's also doesn't it?

Grafton

[Andy Bettencourt]

For some reason I think the E46 323 makes 170.

17 * 1.3 = 223.6 * 12.9 = 2850.9

So adders are 150ish.

3150 is the number you see kicked around but isn't an official number. Can we also agree that the effect of adders is mitigated when weight goes up. So, in an effort to be fair, the E36 would receive little-to-no adders at a weight of 3150 - 3200.

I submit that nobody is building E46's because:

Donor's aren't super cheap
Parts are hard to source
It isn't a clear overdog

AB

[e36its]

Where in relation to the air mass sensor did you mount the SIR? I attached mine to the stock rubber elbow that came off the throttle body, then mounted the Air Mass Sensor in front of that and then attached an ITG air filter to the front of the Air Mass Sensor. It's a tight squeeze but it fits.
[/b]
Thanks for the information; that's the same configuration I was planning to use. If I might ask, did you have to make fuel pressure or programming adjustments to make the configuration work? I heard from a very reputable engine builder that stock software will work (down a few horsepower, granted, but run safely) in that configuration but that seems to conflict with what I've heard about dangerously lean conditions requiring substantial extra fuel to achieve safe AFR.

tom
(not an engineer, can't play one on TV, nowhere near a Holiday Inn Express...)

[steve s]

in that conf. if you had a good A/F ratio you will not not have a problem it will be a little lean but not a big problem.with fine tuning you may gain 1 or 2 hp,with perfect A/f ratio.
good luck with the SIR it sucks big time.!!!!!!

[rob22]

Just came back from Sebring, and it does not appear the BMW is quite dead. Carlos Garcia won at least two and I think all three regionals this weekend despite good competiion from Peter Eels and Mark Dana and others. He ran a best of 1.18.4 on the short course, which I believe is about 1/2 second off his normal time.

In the last race of the weekend, he won quite handily. Some folks need to quit wringing their hands and crying and just get to work. Judging by this weekend the car is still very competitive.

"Bosco" Logsdon

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just came back from Sebring, and it does not appear the BMW is quite dead. Carlos Garcia won at least two and I think all three regionals this weekend despite good competiion from Peter Eels and Mark Dana and others. He ran a best of 1.18.4 on the short course, which I believe is about 1/2 second off his normal time.

In the last race of the weekend, he won quite handily. Some folks need to quit wringing their hands and crying and just get to work. Judging by this weekend the car is still very competitive.

"Bosco" Logsdon [/b]

Then maybe we will see some letters that aren't like this one:

"This program has completely killed us in the middle of a season when we are leading by a little but having to fight hard every weekend for a first place finish. Now it just makes it easier for the Mazda's to do what they have always done, DOMINATE. Why the inequality? Does someone in the right spot have authority to make these changes no matter the outcome to please others there are interests in? This is the speculation amongst most if not all the BMW runners and even some of the top ITS guys running other makes that cannot believe the injustice."

Any guesses as to who wrote this one? You will see in the next FT. :wacko:

[steve s]

why not paint the full picture than just sign you name to the end result ?????
it takes a new set of hoosiers every session to do that plus countless hours of dyno work.
the rx7s out qualified him and was pulling him at least 3 car lenghts coming out of the corners he had a better handling car that weekend . the rx7's had more power butwas not handling great. he did not pass them till their tires went away and started losing control of there car.how many of you out there is will to buy new hoosiers not every weekend but every session just to win .like i've said before when we go to horsepower track like daytona rd. atlanta ,rb road.etc it will be a different story.all the hoosiers in the world cannot give you horsepower only scca comp. board can give you that.again i'm asking for those mysterious dyno testing with the SIR the club did or did not do .i'd really like to see those numbers !!!!!!!!!

[Banzai240]

... he did not pass them till their tires went away and started losing control of there car.[/b]

Dude... tire management for the ENTIRE race is part of the game... It doesn't take much skill to drive the tires out from under a car in the first 15 minutes of a race, and most of us would/could drive faster if making the tires survive the session wasn't a factor...

Apparently you are one of those who would suggest that it would be "better" if the BMW had just been made to weigh 3200lbs... Then EVERYONE's tires could go away and all would "start losing control of their car"... :rolleyes:

[rob22]

Steve, the point I was making was, that after less than a month using the SIR, Carlos was up front all weekend. The car was still plenty fast in a straight line and he got the job done. The car can still win races. It may not dominate like before, but isn't that the point. As for Daytona, I don't think there is any restrictor on that Mercedes yet, so does it matter. Obviously, the 325 can still compete well and win. Carlos did his homework. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he also had the fastest lap of the weekend. If Carlos can get it done, so can others, but not if they push it in the garage and stay home.

Were all the RX7's handling badly? Were you suggesting a restrictor on Carlos' wallet? Joking, Steve.

Bosco

ITS 240sx
EP 240Z
GT1 Monte Carlo

[seckerich]

why not paint the full picture than just sign you name to the end result ?????
it takes a new set of hoosiers every session to do that plus countless hours of dyno work.
the rx7s out qualified him and was pulling him at least 3 car lenghts coming out of the corners he had a better handling car that weekend . the rx7's had more power butwas not handling great. he did not pass them till their tires went away and started losing control of there car.how many of you out there is will to buy new hoosiers not every weekend but every session just to win .like i've said before when we go to horsepower track like daytona rd. atlanta ,rb road.etc it will be a different story.all the hoosiers in the world cannot give you horsepower only scca comp. board can give you that.again i'm asking for those mysterious dyno testing with the SIR the club did or did not do .i'd really like to see those numbers !!!!!!!!!
[/b]
You went out with stickers every race I have ever been in before the SIR--what is different now? You waste stickers to practice? You guys going to Roebling in July? I'm thinking of skipping it but will be there with the wife's new car.

[bimmere36]

Hey guys, I have never written here before but am always reading through. however, this time I had to register and enter my comments.

As to Andy Bettancourts response to Steve's email with a letter that will post in next FT issue, it was me that wrote it. Andy I do not know you but it sounds a little sarcastic. To me it is what I feel. See unless you own a BMW and understand the amount of prep it takes to pull of wins I do not think you should insinuate anything. I am not at all saying I am the only one who preps becausse GOD knows there are alot of other guys that tkae this way too serious like me and fully prep for all events.

When our BMW first hit the track, we were underdogs to the RX7 (please see results at Sebring LOng course January 2005). See I hate second place. I race to win. So, there is NO limit on spending to get my car prepped to the FULLEST LEGAL potential. Countless hours on the dyno just made me buy my own dyno and spend even more time on it (actually not me it's the brain Steve Saney). This car is on the dyno 4 days before EVERY race weekend and when it comes back. Leak downs performed always after every weekend. fresh brakes EVERY Weekend as well as liquids. All this was done to try and obtain the edge and beat the DOMINATING factors in ITS which are the second gens.

We accomplished this and to our demise get penalized for it. Not understanding why because if we are so DOMINANT how are the second gens keeping up with us and making us battle to the end. You might ask who owns these second gens that are so fast, Steve Eckerich and Buzz Marcus. You cannott blink twice with these guys around and this was befroe the SIR. Imagine now?????????????????????????????????????????

I NEVER give up. I LOOOOVE challenges. We are starting the entire process all over again. Back to DYNOING EVERY DAY and alot of testing (this includes rentals of tracks however will not disclose which ones :) You might say this is only Club Racing but to me it's racing. No expense spared if you want to win.

I really don't like to post and start arguments of any nature but man come on you know the size of this SIR is abnormal!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey guys, I have never written here before but am always reading through. however, this time I had to register and enter my comments.

As to Andy Bettancourts response to Steve's email with a letter that will post in next FT issue, it was me that wrote it. Andy I do not know you but it sounds a little sarcastic. To me it is what I feel. See unless you own a BMW and understand the amount of prep it takes to pull of wins I do not think you should insinuate anything. I am not at all saying I am the only one who preps becausse GOD knows there are alot of other guys that tkae this way too serious like me and fully prep for all events.

When our BMW first hit the track, we were underdogs to the RX7 (please see results at Sebring LOng course January 2005). See I hate second place. I race to win. So, there is NO limit on spending to get my car prepped to the FULLEST LEGAL potential. Countless hours on the dyno just made me buy my own dyno and spend even more time on it (actually not me it's the brain Steve Saney). This car is on the dyno 4 days before EVERY race weekend and when it comes back. Leak downs performed always after every weekend. fresh brakes EVERY Weekend as well as liquids. All this was done to try and obtain the edge and beat the DOMINATING factors in ITS which are the second gens.

We accomplished this and to our demise get penalized for it. Not understanding why because if we are so DOMINANT how are the second gens keeping up with us and making us battle to the end. You might ask who owns these second gens that are so fast, Steve Eckerich and Buzz Marcus. You cannott blink twice with these guys around and this was befroe the SIR. Imagine now?????????????????????????????????????????

I NEVER give up. I LOOOOVE challenges. We are starting the entire process all over again. Back to DYNOING EVERY DAY and alot of testing (this includes rentals of tracks however will not disclose which ones :) You might say this is only Club Racing but to me it's racing. No expense spared if you want to win.

I really don't like to post and start arguments of any nature but man come on you know the size of this SIR is abnormal!!!!!!!!!!!! [/b]



Carlos,

It's good to have you here. I think that the bottom line is that in a letter you write that your program is dead but just one month after the SIR goes into effect, you are winning races in a very competitive area. Some feel that is disingenuous. And are you insinuating that you have had (pre-SIR) to OVER-prep your E36 to win? The data shows the exact opposite.

I applaud your level of effort and prep. If eveyone had the resources to do it like you, we would have tons of useful data.

As far as starting arguements - no way. You and your opinions are welcome and needed. Please weigh in when you see the need - and sign your name!

AB
(Praying for ITR where the E36 can run free while having been through the same process as everyone else)

[steve s]

hey andy i have a hyperthethical question for you.
if carlos decides to get a mazda and we put the same resources behind the project and
we dominate .would that car be put through the meatgrinder because it's an overdog?????
and rob22 if you were there you know marc 's car qual. great but in the race he was running away
from the field then he slowed up and was struggling all weekend long after that .if his car was running
100% he would have won .what do you think?????
and banzai 240 yes i did vote for weight to be added!!!!!!SIR has no place in IT racing.Keep It Simple St-----
that's my philosophy.
ps i think ITR would be a good alternate class for the BMW but at the weight being thrown
around we cannot get the car down to that weight.

[JeffYoung]

So what you guys (Steve and Carlos) are saying is that any time a "top prep" BMW shows up, you should win?

That's not true with a 240z...

That's not true with an RX7....(I've seen Steve E. and Kent T. lose to BMWs many times)

That's not true with a 240sx....

That's not true with any other car in ITS.

Lots of guys work hard, very hard, on their cars to run top 5 at best. The claim of entitlement to wins by the BMW guys never ceases to amaze me.

Edit - and ditto what Rob said below. VERY good to see you guys working hard to be competitive with the SIR, and it appears you are.

Still hate the thing (SIRs) though.

[rob22]

Steve, the fact is that Carlos and his BMW are competitive. As I said maybe not dominant anymore, but I believe he is gonna win his share of races. You guys prep the car as good as anybody and Carlos drives the wheels off ot it. His lap times were right there if not better all weekend with several well funded, well prepped and expertly driven 7's. I am also quite sure you guys will find even more speed. I was congratulating you on not throwing in the towel and just going to work. Apparently others do not have the same determination.

Best of Luck with the rest of your season,

"Bosco"

[Bill Miller]

ps i think ITR would be a good alternate class for the BMW but at the weight being thrown
around we cannot get the car down to that weight.
[/b]

Steve raises an interesting question. I'd like to ask the E36 drivers if they're able to get to 2850# (please give driver weight), and how much, if any ballast they have to run. Until now, I've not heard anyone complain about not being able to make 2850#, or the proposed 2750# for ITR.

[BMW RACER]

Bill.

I start the race with a full tank, and finish at about 2870. I have no ballast, but I weigh 205 lbs. I'm not sure I could knock off a hundred pounds and still be IT legal.

As far as the SIR is concerned, it cost me about 1.5 seconds at California Speedway. I think if I raise my game driving wise and prep wise I can get some of that back. I'm not happy, but I'm ready to jump ship just yet.

[dj10]

Steve raises an interesting question. I'd like to ask the E36 drivers if they're able to get to 2850# (please give driver weight), and how much, if any ballast they have to run. Until now, I've not heard anyone complain about not being able to make 2850#, or the proposed 2750# for ITR. [/b]



Bill,

Depends on which model. The 325is is 53# (curb wt.) lighter than the 325I (4 door). Myself, I have an 325I and I have no problem with the 2850. I have to run 3/4 tank and 22# ballast and I'm 195#. I think it will be tough getting another 100# legal off the car but I haven't really though too much about it. I'll do some research and get back to you.

[JeffYoung]

Thanks Dan. The car does need to get to 2750 to be competitive in ITR. If it can, we have an issue.

Let us know your findings.

Jeff

[Andy Bettencourt]

hey andy i have a hyperthethical question for you.
if carlos decides to get a mazda and we put the same resources behind the project and
we dominate .would that car be put through the meatgrinder because it's an overdog?????

[/b]



Steve,

It has been stated time and time again that the cream will rise to the top. As long as the cars have been through the classification process, the chips will fall where they may. The process will never be perfect, and we will try and make it as good as possible, but the fact remains that the 'overdogs' on the track ended up being light when they got run through the process. All the CRB did when they approved this was to bring everyone to ground zero and allowed everyone to be measured by the same stick. I think that is all anyone can ask for.



and banzai 240 yes i did vote for weight to be added!!!!!!SIR has no place in IT racing.Keep It Simple St-----
that's my philosophy.[/b]

What has also been stated time and time again is that the ITAC recommended the weight. ONE of my problems with the SIR (and there are a few) is that nobody will EVER be happy. If the BMW's still win, everyone else in ITS will say the SIR is too big. If the BMW's can't win, the BMW guys will say they got killed. No outcome will provide firm footing to simply say (tongue in cheek) "shut up and drive" - like in all the other classes.



ps i think ITR would be a good alternate class for the BMW but at the weight being thrown
around we cannot get the car down to that weight. [/b]

The weight for the E36 325's would be 2765. 15lbs I know but every little bit helps.



AB

[buldogge]

Well...

In many parts of the country the E36 and the RX-7 were battling well already...now the E36's are gonna fade away by. The SIR comes close to "levelling" the horsepower differential (of top flight efforts) but there is something more lost in the translation, something more than horsepower. The cars were FAR TOO CLOSE BEFORE to cut our balls off like this. Having said that, 300# would have been real murder.

I have only run one weekend with the SIR so far so I admit my experience and development IS limited.


ITS counts are WAAY down in the MiDiv and frankly I haven't had a lot of incentive to make the effort (Yes...I am part of the problem) seeing as we have a new baby and a turn-of-the-century rehab on our hands.

...BUT...as far as ITR and OUR AUTOMATIC INCLUSION...I worry about three things:

1) Even lower car counts

2) The inability to get down to 2750# legally/safely/reasonably. I have run as low as 2856 with LOW fuel load and my lighter wheels (SSR Comps...-16#). I weigh 225# and carry no ballast. I think I can strip 50-60# off the car (scraping the bottom of the barrrel) MAX!

3) Going from an almost competitive situation to a completely uncompetitive situation WITH NO RECOURSE AND NOWHERE TO TURN (other than BMWCCA...ahem...HANS and NASA)!!!

Oh well...My 2c anyway.

[mlytle]

Bill,

Depends on which model. The 325is is 53# (curb wt.) lighter than the 325I (4 door). Myself, I have an 325I and I have no problem with the 2850. I have to run 3/4 tank and 22# ballast and I'm 195#. I think it will be tough getting another 100# legal off the car but I haven't really though too much about it. I'll do some research and get back to you.
[/b]

my 325is is 2850 after a race..with me at 190, 40lbs of ballast, 1/3 tank of gas, and lots of little things i can still take out legally. on a strict diet, 2760 for itr is doable.

[Bill Miller]

Well...

In many parts of the country the E36 and the RX-7 were battling well already...now the E36's are gonna fade away by. The SIR comes close to "levelling" the horsepower differential (of top flight efforts) but there is something more lost in the translation, something more than horsepower. The cars were FAR TOO CLOSE BEFORE to cut our balls off like this. Having said that, 300# would have been real murder.

I have only run one weekend with the SIR so far so I admit my experience and development IS limited.


ITS counts are WAAY down in the MiDiv and frankly I haven't had a lot of incentive to make the effort (Yes...I am part of the problem) seeing as we have a new baby and a turn-of-the-century rehab on our hands.

...BUT...as far as ITR and OUR AUTOMATIC INCLUSION...I worry about three things:

1) Even lower car counts

2) The inability to get down to 2750# legally/safely/reasonably. I have run as low as 2856 with LOW fuel load and my lighter wheels (SSR Comps...-16#). I weigh 225# and carry no ballast. I think I can strip 50-60# off the car (scraping the bottom of the barrrel) MAX!

3) Going from an almost competitive situation to a completely uncompetitive situation WITH NO RECOURSE AND NOWHERE TO TURN (other than BMWCCA...ahem...HANS and NASA)!!!

Oh well...My 2c anyway.
[/b]

Mark,

If you're at 2856, and can admit that you can get 50-60# legally out of the car, and you're 45# over the target driver weight of 180#, that all IT cars are spec'd with, that's 95-105#, which is 10-20 beyond the 2765# that Andy has stated will be the ITR weight for the car. Based on that, and what Marshall just posted, sure sounds like 2765# is doable.

And at the risk of sounding harsh, if you had an E36 that was 'almost competitive' in ITS, something in the program was lacking. I've never seen Chet or his car run, but I've watched Ed York, Marshall Lytle, and other E36 drivers blister Summit Point in their cars. In fact, I looked at the MARRS results for the '05 season, and every ITS race at Summit Point was won by an E36. If you couldn't be competitive in ITS in an E36 before this year, it's not the car's fault.

[buldogge]

Well Bill... I wasn't aware you were using an "average driver" weight. So I'm screwed unless I cut off a limb...oh well.

I didn't say I wasn't competitive before....I didn't past tense anything (almost competitive refers to the CURRENT post-SIR situation). FWIW...I was 3rd in the Mid-Am Championship and 1st in the Midwest IT Tour Championship in 2005 in my rookie year. I was stating the PRESENT forseeable situation, all in the present tense. Perhaps we (collective we) will sort it out in the future, perhaps the E36 has been relegated. I have stated many times before in other threads re: this very matter that we had decent battles...E36, RX-7, 200SX, GSR (fades), and 911 (seems to fade as well).

Regardless, as is usual, you spout off drivel about 3-4 cars in the SE while the rest of the country suffers...and the SE ITS counts are affected as well with no E36's at Summit or VIR or somesuch as reported by Jeff Young (I believe) a few weeks back in another thread.

What ITS race series do you participate in again Bill?




Mark,

If you're at 2856, and can admit that you can get 50-60# legally out of the car, and you're 45# over the target driver weight of 180#, that all IT cars are spec'd with, that's 95-105#, which is 10-20 beyond the 2765# that Andy has stated will be the ITR weight for the car. Based on that, and what Marshall just posted, sure sounds like 2765# is doable.

And at the risk of sounding harsh, if you had an E36 that was 'almost competitive' in ITS, something in the program was lacking. I've never seen Chet or his car run, but I've watched Ed York, Marshall Lytle, and other E36 drivers blister Summit Point in their cars. In fact, I looked at the MARRS results for the '05 season, and every ITS race at Summit Point was won by an E36. If you couldn't be competitive in ITS in an E36 before this year, it's not the car's fault.
[/b]

[lateapex911]

All race weights are stated inclusive of the stnadard 180 pound driver. (Hey...don't complain...ever wonder why DeMatta won so much in CART?? Because the car needed to make the min weight without the driver....all driver weight was extra ballast. Heavy drivers, no matter the talent need no apply).

Roll cage specs are based on car weight without the driver.

That said, our pre submission research indicated that the E36 could make weight readily. Thanks to those E36 guys who returned our emails with solid data. Keep in mind that all cars in any class may NOT be able to get down to minimum weights....choose carefully when deciding which car to build.
(a good example would be the BMW 635 proposed for ITR. Big engine...hmmm...big torque numbers..hehe...looks interesting...but wait..what's this? it needs to lose 600 pounds?? uh oh....thats not gonna happen.... lets see what else is on the list, LOL)

[JoelG]

my 325is is 2850 after a race..with me at 190, 40lbs of ballast, 1/3 tank of gas, and lots of little things i can still take out legally. on a strict diet, 2760 for itr is doable.
[/b]

you might have to take the power windows out :)

[JeffYoung]

Mark, our regional sprint race series is the SARRC. I've been to:

1. April Carolina Motorsports Park -- no E36s.

2. April Roebling -- 1 E36 (Carlos Garcia, pre-SIR).

3. I did not attend VIR in March, but understand there was one E36 there for the enduro (the Robertsons' car).

4. May VIR (SARR/MARRS, that usually draws 5-6 E36s) -- no E36s

5. May CMP -- no E36s.

ITS is struggling here as well I would say and I'm not a fan of the SIR (and especially its timing).

However, I do have one very strong disagreement with your post. Yes, there are (or were) a few cars in the SE that in my view could not be beaten by a top prep RX7 or 240z (Chet Whittel, Ed York, Seth Thomas, James Clay, etc.). Unfortunately, because that is the car's potential, that is what the ITAC (which I am not a member of) has to use when running the car through the formula.

What in my view the ITAC is properly trying to avoid is a situation where 9/10 or 8/10 BMWs can run with and beat 10/10 RX7s and Z cars, which is what I believe has been the case for several years. I have seen several instances of rookie drivers in E36s running near or at the front, and frankly, given the level of prep and driving skill required in other ITS cars, that's not right.

Something needed to be done.

[Bill Miller]

Well Bill... I wasn't aware you were using an "average driver" weight. So I'm screwed unless I cut off a limb...oh well.

I didn't say I wasn't competitive before....I didn't past tense anything (almost competitive refers to the CURRENT post-SIR situation). FWIW...I was 3rd in the Mid-Am Championship and 1st in the Midwest IT Tour Championship in 2005 in my rookie year. I was stating the PRESENT forseeable situation, all in the present tense. Perhaps we (collective we) will sort it out in the future, perhaps the E36 has been relegated. I have stated many times before in other threads re: this very matter that we had decent battles...E36, RX-7, 200SX, GSR (fades), and 911 (seems to fade as well).

Regardless, as is usual, you spout off drivel about 3-4 cars in the SE while the rest of the country suffers...and the SE ITS counts are affected as well with no E36's at Summit or VIR or somesuch as reported by Jeff Young (I believe) a few weeks back in another thread.

What ITS race series do you participate in again Bill?
[/b]

Mark,


I didn't set the average drive spec weight, the CRB did. Just because you're over it doesn't mean that's where they should set the weight. BTW, I'm in the same boat as you. If I can't get my car to weight because I weigh over 180#, I sure don't expect anybody else to do anything about it. I'd like the avg. weight to be higher, but I certainly don't think 180# is an unreasonable benchmark.

If 'almost competitive' refers to post-SIR, what does 'completely uncompetitive' refer to?

And your 'drivel' comment is typical of a lot of the guys that feel that they're entitled to run at the front w/ out a top level program. Talk to any of the ITAC guys, they've said it countless times, cars are spec'd based on max. potential, not some avg. level of prep. It's an objective process, if you don't want to step up your program to a level on par w/ guys like Ed and Chet, don't expect that you should be able to run at the front.

As far as reduced car counts in ITS, you've got some guys that decided to take their ball and go home, and you've got other guys that have done the work, and are seeing where they are at. And from some of the reports, they're not quite as bad off as some have predicited that they would be.

As far as where you finished in those series you mentioned, as a rookie, I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

[buldogge]

Bill... reading comprehension is fundamental.

I didn't believe that YOU set the driver weight, I simply was not aware "THEY" were using an "average driver weight"...thanx for the clarification.

As far as the rest of my post, I refuse to keep retyping my points.

"Completely uncompetitive" is a ???? on the future E36 position in ITR...try reading it again.

As far as my rookie status...did it ever occur to you that maybe we built a tight car...and just maybe I can drive...and just maybe I have race experience with bikes...of course not...I'm a BMW driver...I must have bought my wins or the car was simply too much for the other cars in division.

Actually we had great battles, and I plugged away by going to nearly every race weekend...won on a lot of 2nd and 3rd place finishes and wins when I really needed them! ...except the last race of the season where I threw the championship away spinning onto the front straight at GIR while leading the race. FWIW the very experienced gentleman who has won for the previous 4 years repeated in an oddball 200SX (Bob Gill...now in the SE).

I hold no illusions that my car (or myself) are up to the level of Chet or Ed or Kip...but...that doesn't change my points...and the formula only seems to apply to the top BMW cars as stated previosuly in threads ad nauseum (ss RX-7 obviously).

Have fun...



Mark,
I didn't set the average drive spec weight, the CRB did. Just because you're over it doesn't mean that's where they should set the weight. BTW, I'm in the same boat as you. If I can't get my car to weight because I weigh over 180#, I sure don't expect anybody else to do anything about it. I'd like the avg. weight to be higher, but I certainly don't think 180# is an unreasonable benchmark.

If 'almost competitive' refers to post-SIR, what does 'completely uncompetitive' refer to?

And your 'drivel' comment is typical of a lot of the guys that feel that they're entitled to run at the front w/ out a top level program. Talk to any of the ITAC guys, they've said it countless times, cars are spec'd based on max. potential, not some avg. level of prep. It's an objective process, if you don't want to step up your program to a level on par w/ guys like Ed and Chet, don't expect that you should be able to run at the front.

As far as reduced car counts in ITS, you've got some guys that decided to take their ball and go home, and you've got other guys that have done the work, and are seeing where they are at. And from some of the reports, they're not quite as bad off as some have predicited that they would be.

As far as where you finished in those series you mentioned, as a rookie, I think that pretty much speaks for itself.
[/b]

[JeffYoung]

Mark, I totally understand your frustration with the SIR.

But this I don't understand, honestly:

I hold no illusions that my car (or myself) are up to the level of Chet or Ed or Kip...but...that doesn't change my points...and the formula only seems to apply to the top BMW cars as stated previosuly in threads ad nauseum (ss RX-7 obviously).

Have fun...


The formula applies to all cars equally -- do you disagree with that? The RX7 and 240Z got run through the formula just like the BMW. Your car needs 300 lbs to meet the same power/weight characteristics as the RX7 and 240Z -- using top prepped examples of each. The ITAC HAS to use top prep examples (and frankly, they did not use the highest reported BMW horsepower numbers that I have heard).

So I guess I just need some clarification on your point:

1. Are you saying that your car shouldn't be subject to the result of the process that derive from using a top prep BMW?

2. Or are you saying that the RX7 and the 240Z were NOT subject to the process? Because they were, it's just that they are the "bogey" for the "best" cars in ITS as is. Weight or SIR was needed to bring the 325 in line with those cars, using top prep examples of each. Do you not agree with that?

[sak335]

I've never posted here before though I have read it off and on for a few years. I have a couple comments that I wanted to put out there:

1. Car counts - You aren't seeing many E36's because it's a big change and is going to require a lot of work. I was actually out on the BMW list today because I thought there might actually be a discussion about what lengths others have had to go to to get the car to work again with the SIR. But instead all I find is the same cadre of RX-7 drivers taking pot shots at the BMW guys (why are you even ON a BMW list if you don't race one?). This is the #1 reason I'm no longer racing ITS (or SCCA for that matter). When I race with other organizations, I have fun. SCCA is nothing like fun.

2. BMW CCA made a rules change to allow ex-ITS BMW 325's run in their JP class without any restriction, all other rules apply. A car in that trim will be competitive, though not a consistent front runner. I personally would rather run mid pack in an organization that treats me well than one that does not, hence my defection.

3. Picking up your ball and going home? I don't think so. I refuse to run with an organization that fails to understand the financial impact of their inability to take a scientific process into account. These changes never should have taken place until some real science was involved. I'm an engineer and the process by which the SIR was chosen was a disappointment. Now I have to spend more money (with ZERO warning) for the privelage of running with SCCA. Nope. I work hard to earn my money and it limits how much time I can spend on a hobby. Have we all forgotten this is Club Racing?

As far about the comments about learning to drive, I'm not going to dignify those with a response. I've been instructing and racing (and winning) for years. If I was that bad I would have taken up golf.

Shane Kleinpeter
1994 325i #76

[buldogge]

Hey Jeff...

Top E36's and TOP RX-7's were battling...Mid-level BMW's and RX-7's were battling...don't know nuthin' bout no 240z though (none in our region). We'll have to agree to disagree...the BMW and RX-7 simply were not seperated by the chasm that is portrayed here. 300# would have been ridiculous...the SIR might work...but...what will ITR deal us...who knows???

Side note...My car is well prepped but I do give up about 10hp to the full-tilt cars. My line was more in deference to Chet et al...I'm only getting started here.

The reclassification/new class/participation scares me most.

Have a good day Jeff.



Mark, I totally understand your frustration with the SIR.

But this I don't understand, honestly:

I hold no illusions that my car (or myself) are up to the level of Chet or Ed or Kip...but...that doesn't change my points...and the formula only seems to apply to the top BMW cars as stated previosuly in threads ad nauseum (ss RX-7 obviously).

Have fun...
The formula applies to all cars equally -- do you disagree with that? The RX7 and 240Z got run through the formula just like the BMW. Your car needs 300 lbs to meet the same power/weight characteristics as the RX7 and 240Z -- using top prepped examples of each. The ITAC HAS to use top prep examples (and frankly, they did not use the highest reported BMW horsepower numbers that I have heard).

So I guess I just need some clarification on your point:

1. Are you saying that your car shouldn't be subject to the result of the process that derive from using a top prep BMW?

2. Or are you saying that the RX7 and the 240Z were NOT subject to the process? Because they were, it's just that they are the "bogey" for the "best" cars in ITS as is. Weight or SIR was needed to bring the 325 in line with those cars, using top prep examples of each. Do you not agree with that?
[/b]

[Bill Miller]

"Completely uncompetitive" is a ???? on the future E36 position in ITR...try reading it again.

[/b]

Mark,

My apologies, I should have read it better. I read it three times, and thought I understood what you meant. It's only after your last post, and me going back to read it again, that I see what you originally wrote and intended. Again, my apologies for my misunderstanding and not being more thorough in my reading of your post.

[e36its]

We interrupt your regularly scheduled endless discussion of the SIR with a request for a little tech:

Does an air flow meter care about its orientation? Obviously, direction of flow must be maintained or the ecu will be forced to adapt to the highly unlikely situation of the motor exhaling 100 cfm of air through the intake, but what about rotating the AFM? My inclination is that it wouldn't matter, but I believe way back someone (Gary Bossert?) referenced a loss of power from rotating an HFM. Any thoughts?

tom

[JamesB]

The AFM shouldnt care about rotating. Due to the way my intercooler on my jetta is done I had to invert my AFM 180degrees, after doing so at the dyno by suggestion of the tuner (less strain on the harness) I saw no loss in power.

[lateapex911]

Tom....I believe it is a hot wire device, correct? if so, then no, theoretically, it's orientation should be irrelevant. If it were a "door" type, then yes, it would matter. But...this is coming froma carb guy, who's just trying to help, LOL.

[steve s]

can someone on the itac board or someone in authority answer this question,
since carlos and myself is spending a lot of time and money developing the SIR
would the BMW be allowed to run in ITS w/SIR.and in ITR w/o SIR ??????
if the bmw would not be allowed in ITS then all this time and money would be wasted.
just don't want to waste more time on the SIR . thank you.

[JeffYoung]

Steve, I am not a member of the ITAC, but I did write a portion of the ITR proposal. As written, the 325is goes to ITR unrestricted -- it is moved out of S entirely. After some posting here and on Bimmerforums, I thought this is what the BMW folks who responded (admittedly they were few) wanted. If not, let the CRB and ITAC know.

I don't like the SIR but I think it is up to you guys to decide where to run your car so long as it fits the process.

Mark, thanks for the post above. I guess we do have to agree to disagree. In the SEDiv, I have yet to see a topflight RX7 that can compete with a 10/10 BMW (Chet Whittel or Ed York). Huffmaster came the closest at the ARRC last year. Steve E. and Kent Thompson have FAST RX7s but from what I've seen can't come close.

The power to weight process puts the BMW at 3100 lbs to make it on even footing with the RX7 and the 240z. That's just the way the numbers come out.

[Bill Miller]

can someone on the itac board or someone in authority answer this question,
since carlos and myself is spending a lot of time and money developing the SIR
would the BMW be allowed to run in ITS w/SIR.and in ITR w/o SIR ??????
if the bmw would not be allowed in ITS then all this time and money would be wasted.
just don't want to waste more time on the SIR . thank you.
[/b]

Steve,

I know of no other car in IT that's allowed to run in 2 different classes based on either weight or an SIR. That being said, I would imagine that if ITR happens, and if the E36 goes there, that it won't run in ITS anymore, either at a higher weight, or w/ an SIR. Not on the ITAC or CRB, but I do drive by a Holiday Inn Express from time to time.

[its66]

Mark, our regional sprint race series is the SARRC. I've been to:

1. April Carolina Motorsports Park -- no E36s.

2. April Roebling -- 1 E36 (Carlos Garcia, pre-SIR).

3. I did not attend VIR in March, but understand there was one E36 there for the enduro (the Robertsons' car).

4. May VIR (SARR/MARRS, that usually draws 5-6 E36s) -- no E36s

5. May CMP -- no E36s.

ITS is struggling here as well I would say and I'm not a fan of the SIR (and especially its timing).

However, I do have one very strong disagreement with your post. Yes, there are (or were) a few cars in the SE that in my view could not be beaten by a top prep RX7 or 240z (Chet Whittel, Ed York, Seth Thomas, James Clay, etc.). Unfortunately, because that is the car's potential, that is what the ITAC (which I am not a member of) has to use when running the car through the formula.

What in my view the ITAC is properly trying to avoid is a situation where 9/10 or 8/10 BMWs can run with and beat 10/10 RX7s and Z cars, which is what I believe has been the case for several years. I have seen several instances of rookie drivers in E36s running near or at the front, and frankly, given the level of prep and driving skill required in other ITS cars, that's not right.

Something needed to be done.
[/b]

Jeff, add one more.

6. June, Sebring short course. 1 E36
ITS was in grp 1 http://www.cfrscca.org/results_archive.html

[Andy Bettencourt]

can someone on the itac board or someone in authority answer this question,
since carlos and myself is spending a lot of time and money developing the SIR
would the BMW be allowed to run in ITS w/SIR.and in ITR w/o SIR ??????
if the bmw would not be allowed in ITS then all this time and money would be wasted.
just don't want to waste more time on the SIR . thank you.
[/b]

Steve,

I would doubt that it would have dual classification - but that is a CRB call. I would MOST certainly write a letter in if you wanted that. I personally wouldn't vote for it (because it opens the flood gates for a 'you do it for them, why not me' letter writing flood - and the car should be just fine in ITR) but the CRB may be thinking this could be a good idea.

I do sympathise with owners/drivers that have spent the time and money to buy and develop the SIR. It is possible that it won't be a requirment in 2007 should ITR make it. But ITR is not a done deal.

In all seriousness however - on a personal note - how does the 'development' of the SIR effect your program cost-wise if you were already doing this as Carlos posted earlier:


So, there is NO limit on spending to get my car prepped to the FULLEST LEGAL potential. Countless hours on the dyno just made me buy my own dyno and spend even more time on it (actually not me it's the brain Steve Saney). This car is on the dyno 4 days before EVERY race weekend and when it comes back. Leak downs performed always after every weekend. fresh brakes EVERY Weekend as well as liquids. [/b]

The results from the West Coast and the Southeast are CLEARLY showing that the E36 is a true contender (ie: still winning races) with the SIR. Fred A. and Greg P. - what do you make of the results? You continue to post death sentences yet those with top prep and top driving are still seeing success. (Oh ya Fred, the E36 M3 is NOT in ITR...).

[lateapex911]

Generally I am not a fan of dual classing certain models at different weights, but in this single case I could be talked into an exception, but a limited one. Say the 2007 year only...after that, it's ITR or nothing.

I see both sides of the case, and am open to other ideas.

[RSTPerformance]

Any BMW driver who wishes to have the car classed in both classes (ITS W/SIR & ITR W/out SIR) I fully support. I will be the first to jump on the rants and say that It would be a disapointment and a shame for SCCA to make that many "required" drastic changes to a "regional level" car at the cost of its members.

While I think that a change was needed and that the SIR might have been the proper way to make the change I do feel for those who had to make the costly adjustments. Making adjustments back would be unjust IMO.

SCCA in general has plenty of cars that fit into two classes, in this case I do not think that we as a club need to limit our view of past history soley on "IT."

If the cars have to be classed only in ITR w/out an SIR then possibly SCCA as a club could realize the misfortune that many BMW drivers has had to go through and could somehow pay them for thier investment with a free race or two? It might cost us in the short run, but in the long run it might bring back some members that we may have lost trust in.

I know that my thoughts are way "out of the box" but isn't that sort of thinking what got us to the SIR anyhow??? Just my thoughts on making something just;

Raymond Blethen
Member # 270386

[Bill Miller]

Raymond,

What does it matter if it's Regional or National? That's a total non-issue, and really isn't germane to the discussion at hand. People pick the car, the class, and the level that they want to race at. You've got plenty of people running IT w/ much larger investments, and much larger budgets, than several people that run Nationals.

And while I also feel for the E36 folks that have spent the money to develop the cars w/ an SIR, rules changes are a fact of life. RR shocks, engine coatings, open ECUs, etc., etc., etc. All rules changes cost people money and time, that's a fact of life. I don't like the idea of dual classifications in IT, but given the uniquness of the E36 situation, I would go along with, and support it, if ITR happens, for one year.

[steve s]

firstly mid year[ for SE.div ]. SCCA throw an SIR on you .
then at the end of the year you won't need it.
we are trying to help SCCA bring back racers here and all i'm hearing is no .
showing everyone that the SIR can work you can win at some track and be a top 8 at
some HP tracks , which is not bad .
but you know what i give up with this BS. we could have just ran the car in p1 or p2[ not sure ]
without restrictor and we wouldn't have wasted all this time and money.
i guess the SIR was not a good investment for the BMW driver who tried it .but someone made some money???????
why couldn't SCCA just say next year you run ITR unrestricted???????? and run the FP till year end ????
show me any car out there that had this injustice brought to them and i'll keep my mouth shut.!!!!
SCCA REALLY SUCKS BIG TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :dead_horse:

[JeffYoung]

Steve, Ron and I didn't even begin writing the SIR proposal until AFTER the SIR announcement. Nor is it (ITR) a done deal. The "sucky" SCCA didn't "plan" the timing of the SIR and ITR deals. It just happened that way.

What are you hearing "no" about? I don't follow you on that one.

Is Sebring not a hp track?

Are you bringing Carlos' car to Roebling in July?


Did you guys submit a dyno sheet to the CRB back when it was trying to decide between an SIR and weight? If not, you share some responsibility in the fact that the car got the SIR and not weight.

Do you agree that the BMW needed one or the other? If not, you will never be happy in IT racing because that (SIR or weight) is what the process dictates.

[lateapex911]

firstly mid year[ for SE.div ]. SCCA throw an SIR on you .
then at the end of the year you won't need it.
we are trying to help SCCA bring back racers here and all i'm hearing is no .
showing everyone that the SIR can work you can win at some track and be a top 8 at
some HP tracks , which is not bad .
but you know what i give up with this BS. we could have just ran the car in p1 or p2[ not sure ]
without restrictor and we wouldn't have wasted all this time and money.
i guess the SIR was not a good investment for the BMW driver who tried it .but someone made some money???????
why couldn't SCCA just say next year you run ITR unrestricted???????? and run the FP till year end ????
show me any car out there that had this injustice brought to them and i'll keep my mouth shut.!!!!
SCCA REALLY SUCKS BIG TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :dead_horse:
[/b]

Dude...I'll try to be calm and concise. Your post has got to be missing words...it's like it's written in abbreviations, but the bottom line is the final comment.

One comment I got, was the "Someone made money" line. Really? Are you sure? Have you seen the profit and loss statements for the SIR from , hmmm, lets just choose one supplier, Raetech?? No, of course you haven't, so crap like that just doesn't fly.

Or how about the club?? Did THEY make money?? Hmmm..well, heres how it went...CRB guys and ITAC guys spent money out of their own pocket to test the damn thing. Don't tell me otherwise, I was there, and I own about $100 bucks less now for my trouble. And my costs were light compared to others. Did we test enough? Not in my opinion, but I'm just one guy. We tested far more than ever before though.

But saying the WHOLE club sucks because ONE f-ing car got a bad deal? Total BS, and you should be ashamed......the car got a GREAT deal for years ...lots of guys are whining right now because they actually have to go do SOME homework. We got one letter from a guy who won, and ran top three all the time with a stock motor, and was upset that he would now have to prep his car at the same level as his competitors!! How fair is that???? Like I lost a lot of tears over that one, LOL.

Sorry, but the club tried to do the best it could. Remember, the "Club" is guys like you and me. Volunteers. The "club" made mistakes. It made a mistake long before my involvemnt in the classing of this car, and it made errors in the process of clipping it's wings. We've apologized until we are blue in the face over issues like timing, etc, but on the other hand, no IT car has gotten as much testing and attention as this one. I've gotten comments from members effectively saying, "Stop...just add weight, slap a SIR on it, whatever....it's ONE car...it doesn't deserve the amount of attention it's getting, when there are bigger issues to attend to."

But an entire club can't be blasted that way for ONE car... :wacko:

Your comment was very irresponsible and way out of line.

(This message brought by my opinion, not necessarily those of the organization.)

[RSTPerformance]

Bill-

Why is IT a regional class? I think that might tell us why it matters if is is a Regional or National class...

Also Agreed rules change, and we deal with it... but this is a unique situation as everyone seems to agree :(

Also agreed many people spend Tons on IT cars and that is wonderful for the class as a whole, it brings the "level" up a few notches from back in the day when it really was just a place to start, even though it still is... or should be IMO

Also, I support a dual class for 1 year, 2 years, life, grandfathering, anything that would help retain our members and not upset people like we already have... weather we have or not is not an issue we have... weather it is just that we have I am not about to argue either way.

Raymond

PS: Steve, SCCA RULES and offers the best racing in North America IMO

[Bill Miller]

Raymond,

IT is Regional-only for several reasons. Mostly it's due to a long-held view by some in our club that IT cars are not 'real' race cars. Couple that w/ groups of low-participation cars trying to protect their turf. You've also got some IT folks that feel that having IT go National will make them spend more money to keep up w/ those that have the money, and want to 'go to the show'. But, I'm not going to hijack this thread to deal w/ the Regional-only nature of IT.

[e36its]

Did we test enough? Not in my opinion, but I'm just one guy. We tested far more than ever before though.[/b]
The ITAC/CRB is to be commended for doing the testing. They could have made a decision by fiat without any information gathering and that would have been that. But I'd maintain the testing was necessitated by the fact that the CRB has chosen to blaze new ground with use of the SIR in IT -- so the CRB gets points for making the decision to test, but working outside the box of accepted solutions was also their decision.


We got one letter from a guy who won, and ran top three all the time with a stock motor, and was upset that he would now have to prep his car at the same level as his competitors!! How fair is that???? Like I lost a lot of tears over that one, LOL.[/b]
I see what you're coming from, Jake -- the sense of entitlement is troubling. However, let's not overstate things: I don't have to prep to the same level as the other competitors in IT. I have to prep to a level BEYOND the other competitors in IT. Maybe it benefits me long term vs. weight, maybe not... but it's undoubtedly different.


We've apologized until we are blue in the face over issues like timing, etc, but on the other hand, no IT car has gotten as much testing and attention as this one. I've gotten comments from members effectively saying, "Stop...just add weight, slap a SIR on it, whatever....it's ONE car...it doesn't deserve the amount of attention it's getting, when there are bigger issues to attend to."[/b]
I do appreciate the mea culpa from the powers-that-be and absolutely agree that this has consumed a bigger chunk of everyone's time and attention than anyone would have liked... but I'd offer the counterpoint that it's one car in one class to everyone else, but it's MY WHOLE RACING PROGRAM from my perspective. So you can forgive me if the issues feel a bit bigger from my side of the fence.

In that light: I'd say moving the E36 from ITS to ITR is a mistake. I support the classification of the car in ITR (and the ITR proposal overall, nice work!), but I think the ITS classification should remain. I can understand the desire to avoid dual classification and the precedent it might set, but we're so far past the E36 being similar to any other car in IT that I think it'd be quite reasonable to avoid similar requests in the future. Here's the precedent: Any IT car can request dual classification after it's had its motor restricted by two different new-to-IT methods in as many years and then moved into a brand new class requring different wheels. :D

Look at it this way: it's (from what I can see) a low-consequence way to avoid impacting the E36 owner another time.

tom

[JeffYoung]

Tom, that is a good, thoughtful post by a BMW driver. Much appreciated.

Jeff

[lateapex911]

Agreed, nice points. Thats why I would support a dual classing concept for this car. Only.

[Bill Miller]

Agreed, nice points. Thats why I would support a dual classing concept for this car. Only.
[/b]

Yep, me too, but only for 1 year after ITR is created.

[BMW RACER]

Here's a thought, how about you classify the E36 in ITS and ITR for one year, keep an eye on results and then choose ITS or ITR after some testing? I'm all for making my car faster (no restrictor 100 lb less weight) but I still would like to be competitive.

Just a thought.

[kthomas]

"And while I also feel for the E36 folks that have spent the money to develop the cars w/ an SIR, rules changes are a fact of life. RR shocks, engine coatings, open ECUs, etc., etc., etc. All rules changes cost people money and time, that's a fact of life."

Coatings: cost me an engine after our buddy Swen told us the coating I was using was okay. #@$%&!
RR shocks: cost me a set of shocks (actually it didn't, we sold the car to build an E36) %$@*&!
ECU's: hey, this one didn't cost me anything!
SIR's: another car for sale. Paid a bunch to develop it under the OLD rules. Ain't doing it again. &%@$#!

Finally got tired of paying SCCA's IT "tax on the rich". We're outtta here. Member for 24 years. Maybe we are taking our ball and going home, but it just hasn't been that fun playing ball when the rules keep making my ball illegal...

[kthomas]

Gosh, a whole day and no response. Okay, I'll do it. katman you're a big whiner.

[mlytle]

The ITAC/CRB is to be commended for doing the testing. They could have made a decision by fiat without any information gathering and that would have been that. But I'd maintain the testing was necessitated by the fact that the CRB has chosen to blaze new ground with use of the SIR in IT -- so the CRB gets points for making the decision to test, but working outside the box of accepted solutions was also their decision.
tom
[/b]


um, except for the fact that ZERO testing was done prior to the CRB implementing the SIR rule. the testing only occured AFTER the rule was instituted and AFTER the huge outcry of foul. the CRB should get no credit, commendation or points for testing, they only did it under duress for CYA purposes.

if they had actually done some research, testing and tried to fit an SIR into the car before they issued the rule, it would be another story. but that isn't what happened.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Any more data for the CRB?

[steve s]

andy you have my data .but the impression i get from your email is that my data is garbage .or it's not what you want to see or hear.if that's the way an SCCA representative treats it's members i don't think you'll get much cooperation from it's members.
also i believe that you and the CRB have already made your decision and no amount of real world data is going to change that .sorry to be so negative but that's my opinion and my .02 cents on this issue.
i would really like to see the car stay in ITS . than go to ITR.it would cost a lot more money to buy new rims etc.and then, now to develop the engin e unrestricted. :eclipsee_steering:
ps why won't the CRB/SCCA share your :wacko: dyno numbers of your SIRtesting??????? are you afraid that the hp numbers you guy are quoting is way off??????????

[Stan]

andy you have my data .but the impression i get from your email is that my data is garbage .or it's not what you want to see or hear.if that's the way an SCCA representative treats it's members i don't think you'll get much cooperation from it's members.
also i believe that you and the CRB have already made your decision and no amount of real world data is going to change that .sorry to be so negative but that's my opinion and my .02 cents on this issue.
i would really like to see the car stay in ITS . than go to ITR.it would cost a lot more money to buy new rims etc.and then, now to develop the engin e unrestricted. :eclipsee_steering:
ps why won't the CRB/SCCA share your :wacko: dyno numbers of your SIRtesting??????? are you afraid that the hp numbers you guy are quoting is way off??????????
[/b]
We have you and Carlos' inputs, Steve, and nobody is treating your data as garbage. Andy's call was for additional data.

The CRB has recommended to the BoD that ITR be created and the 325i/s would go there if that is done, so in that sense, yes, our minds are "made up". However, the BoD has not yet approved ITR, so it's not a done deal, and there is also the question of allowing dual classification for a period of time, which is not yet decided by any means. We are sensitive to the financial impact and want to make the choice as painless as practical.

As for why we don't share actual dyno data, it is simple. The racers who've shared dyno sheets with the CRB do so with the understanding that their data will remain private, and we are going to honor that expectation. Furthermore, the data come from several dynos and from engines with differing levels of preparation, so there is some scattering of peak hp numbers. That said, there has been plenty of discussion about the range of hp we've seen.

Stan

PS - Offline today as I drive to Road America...

[Andy Bettencourt]

andy you have my data .but the impression i get from your email is that my data is garbage .or it's not what you want to see or hear.if that's the way an SCCA representative treats it's members i don't think you'll get much cooperation from it's members.
also i believe that you and the CRB have already made your decision and no amount of real world data is going to change that .sorry to be so negative but that's my opinion and my .02 cents on this issue.
i would really like to see the car stay in ITS . than go to ITR.it would cost a lot more money to buy new rims etc.and then, now to develop the engin e unrestricted. :eclipsee_steering:
ps why won't the CRB/SCCA share your :wacko: dyno numbers of your SIRtesting??????? are you afraid that the hp numbers you guy are quoting is way off?????????? [/b]

Steve,

We do have your data. I e-mailed you off-line to qualify the data. You never responded. Your dyno sheets show 170whp unrestricted and 155whp with the SIR. The numbers simply do not make sense to me (or the ITAC) for a car that is winning races in a very competitive series. All I asked you was some qualifying questions in order to help me understand the numbers - and got no reply - actually you did reply and said that anything over your numbers was illegal.

As far as real world data is concerned, you guys are still winning races. What other RWD do we need?

The information from the dyno testing that the CRB wanted to share was posted by Bob Dowie months ago. Your pre-post SIR install falls right in line with how much the SIR restricts.

[kthomas]

Dyno, schmyno. The only way to have properly implemented this would have been with real track testing.

Where's the formula for relating power/weight to laptime? Peak HP numbers mean nothing.

[steve s]

well andy and the CRB my numbers to you sounds off ?????
then my suggestion to you guys would be rent a dyno and take it to the track lets
say daytona or whatever track is next.it's a SARRC race so top 5 goes to impound .we just ask the other guys to come in to impound, and dyno the top 3 BMW's and the top 3 RX7 and the datsun's.
then you have real racetrack data. yes i know that it takes money to rent a mobile dyno but SCCA is a big club and can afford it .as us racers have to find the money to make our cars legal if you want to race.
peak numbers are for dragracers and dyno queens i go after power under the curve!
i am a bit slow so please can you post a link where i can find your SIR test results???as you stated.
yes we are winning races but maybe we don't have the SIR installed.at 155 whp we were lucky to beat ronnie's ITA integra.

[lateapex911]

Dyno, schmyno. The only way to have properly implemented this would have been with real track testing.

Where's the formula for relating power/weight to laptime? Peak HP numbers mean nothing.
[/b]


Welcome to life....sigh..........

Sure, lets have the club buy a few exampes of the cars and start testing on track. Rent the track, hire the drivers, better buy some other cars too for comparision. (Can't borrow the cars, that would lead to cries of "foul... his car isn't legal or isn't prepped well", or whatever)

Then there will be complaints that the wrong drivers were used, the tracks rented weren't representative of the "Right " kind of track, that the shops used to build the engines were biased, and so on.

Sure, in a perfect world, we'd all love to. But what club out there effectively manages such a diverse category better?? Think carefully about that.

(And I'm not saying that this wasn't handled perfectly, but that your comments are aimed at a specific target, but are much more global in reality)




then my suggestion to you guys would be rent a dyno and take it to the track lets
say daytona or whatever track is next.it's a SARRC race so top 5 goes to impound .we just ask the other guys to come in to impound, and dyno the top 3 BMW's and the top 3 RX7 and the datsun's.
then you have real racetrack data. yes i know that it takes money to rent a mobile dyno but SCCA is a big club and can afford it
[/b]

You should know that the previous testing that occurred was privately funded. Dollars came out of my personal pocket, as well as more dollars out of other guys pockets. Competitors, CRB guys, etc.

If you think that thats OK, then fine.

If you have issues, be part of the solution.. create a group of guys to discuss and come up with a proposal to the club as to how better to handle such issues. I suggest that you make it a club wide movement, as complaining about one car/class doesn't get a lot of traction.

Yes, tech support is paramount today more than ever, and it's up to us to improve it. Thats me, AND you.

[seckerich]

I have run with that BMW too many times to buy the 170hp numbers. I make 174 and it is all I can do to just keep up in the draft. Not a chance of pulling out to pass. Are those dynojet numbers?? If so you need to get that dyno checked. Don't get me wrong Steve, I am not saying you are lying--just doesnt hold up to what I have seen. The BMW is supposed to be a brick in the wind and yet it pulls easy with less HP and more weight. Sound right to you?

[buldogge]

Hey Guys... I think we're talking Mustang numbers here (AA...No?).

FWIW...



I have run with that BMW too many times to buy the 170hp numbers. I make 174 and it is all I can do to just keep up in the draft. Not a chance of pulling out to pass. Are those dynojet numbers?? If so you need to get that dyno checked. Don't get me wrong Steve, I am not saying you are lying--just doesnt hold up to what I have seen. The BMW is supposed to be a brick in the wind and yet it pulls easy with less HP and more weight. Sound right to you?
[/b]

[dj10]

Hey Guys... I think we're talking Mustang numbers here (AA...No?).

FWIW...
[/b]



170 hp is definately not a Dyno Jet unless this car is on 5 cyls. This is a under developed 2.5L on a Mustang Dyno. I bet it would read about 190 to 195 on a Dyno Jet.


For you guys who think dyno testing at the track means nothing, I saw NASA DQ a car right off the track at the finish of a race because it was over on the dyno jet number they were suppose to be at, & also gave them a 70# plenty! They also weight the cars randomly after the qualifiying sessons. If your below your weight you start at the back. SCCA, take notice.

[Mazmarc63]

yes we are winning races but maybe we don't have the SIR installed.at 155 whp we were lucky to beat ronnie's ITA integra.
[/b]


Wow Steve!! If I read this sentance as it is written, than I am extremely dissapointed in you and Carlos. I really hope I have misinterperted your statement. If not, it means Carlos beat Peters 100% Rx-7, my 80% Rx-7, Dick Gallup's 90% Rx-7 AND Paul Ronnies ITA Integra with an illegal car. Guess I should have pressed you to show it to me on Sat. Rest assured we all will be asking to see it at Daytona.....ON THE GRID.

I just shake my head.

[lateapex911]

Silly me, I assumed he was talking about the pre SIR time period...

[steve s]

marc read it again slowly.
and if you guys want to see it just come by.
and jake how do you thinkthe BMW guys are funding the hasty and indecisive decision made by the CRB and SCCA ??????remember i voted for weight.cheaper to buy than the SIR. and if you came out with the new class next year just removeit. no expensive testing and dyno time and changing final drives etc.
i am putting up a fight for the BMW guys because whatever happens now with the BMW and the SIR will be passed on to the next overdog in IT.can someone say ITA miata?????since you cannot add weight then you must implement the SIRon that car.and who knows what 's next.
i personally believe SIR's have no place in club racing.it's way too expensive.not only buying it ,but to develop your engine package,then change final drive to better use the available power .then readust suspension for less power. how many of us grassroots racers can really afford this ?????
this time it's the BMW next time it may be you..

[kthomas]

"Sure, lets have the club buy a few exampes of the cars and start testing on track. Rent the track, hire the drivers, better buy some other cars too for comparision. (Can't borrow the cars, that would lead to cries of "foul... his car isn't legal or isn't prepped well", or whatever)

Then there will be complaints that the wrong drivers were used, the tracks rented weren't representative of the "Right " kind of track, that the shops used to build the engines were biased, and so on."

You're right, too much trouble, an impossible task! That's why we should have left the dang thing alone. It's not a class where competitiveness is guaranteed! The cheapest thing for the club to do would be to do nothing. That's all the "management" this class needed.

[BMW RACER]

I have to agree with Katman. Competition adjustments have no place in IT!

If you look at the other classes that use weight or restrictors to adjust cars, those cars are more similar in layout. Look at all the different GT cars, if you build them to the limit of the rules they come out very similar. Tube frame, rear wheel drive, same size tires and brakes, just slightly different engines and bodies.

IT is so restrictive (that's why I like it) You have a mix of front wheel drive, rear wheel drive, different weights, gear ratios, engines brakes, wheel/tire sizes etc, they all make speed in different ways, on different tracks

IMHO COMPETITION ADJUSTMENTS IS A HUGE CAN OF WORMS!!

Obviously the E36 is a great car. That's why so many people built them.

At some time something else would have come along and become "the hot car"

What's going to happen then? Will anyone really develop a "hot car"? Why bother, they'll just slap you down with a restrictor. Anyone who's sharp will develop it just enough to win. Now that's what I call real racing!

[Andy Bettencourt]

At some time something else would have come along and become "the hot car"

What's going to happen then? Will anyone really develop a "hot car"? Why bother, they'll just slap you down with a restrictor. [/b]

For those of you who think this is the case, I respecfully submit that you haven't been paying attention to anything the ITAC has been trying to convey in this and other forums. Seriously.

[Bill Miller]

If you look at the other classes that use weight or restrictors to adjust cars, those cars are more similar in layout. Look at all the different GT cars, if you build them to the limit of the rules they come out very similar. Tube frame, rear wheel drive, same size tires and brakes, just slightly different engines and bodies.[/b]

John,

I totally agree w/ you on this one, but I also agree w/ Andy. If you look at it, anything that's close to the E36 in performance is pretty much getting shot down. The E46 makes less power and came in at a higher weight. The way the system is set up now, you won't see something that would usurp an unrestricted E36.

[seckerich]

I agree 100%--lets go back to classing the old way. BMW says it only makes 150 stock and it can't race at the real weight because we only allow 50 lbs ballast. :015: Screw the SIR and add lead like every other car in the class. At 3000lbs it would still be a bear to beat. Yes I know this is not the process weight but it would be real world close.

[Banzai240]

Competition adjustments have no place in IT!


[/b]

There ARE NO COMPETITION ADJUSTMENTS in IT... You guys need to start PAYING ATTENTION!

This entire process that's happened over the past two years has been done soley... SOLEY, to get the classes back into some form of alignment.

That being done, further adjustments should be a rare occurrance... Some pretty SERIOUS and conclusive evidence better exist showing a need for a correction, before any further changes are going to be made...

We have already admitted and taken ownership of the fact that there may have been some cars that we missed, or even adjusted incorrectly, and we have already said we'll work to correct those, but otherwise, this is it folks...

Any future classifications will be fit into the system using the same process of classification used to make these adjustements, and the tools are in place to correct those classifications, should we get them wrong the first time...

There should no longer be a case of the "HOT CAR" to have... There WILL BE certain cars that are better under certain conditions, but overall, everyone should be close to a simlilar level of potential in a given class...


And whoever said that the BMW at 3000lbs would be "real world close" just isn't paying attention to the facts... The car makes way... WAY more than 150hp, and 3000lbs, or the equivalent of SMALL passenger to the existing car (2850 + 150lbs), is not going to come CLOSE to bringing this car back to the correct wt/pwr ratio for the class... 3200lbs would be closer to the mark... based on REAL HP figures given to the ITAC and CRB by actual BMW drivers...

Enjoy...

[seckerich]

[And whoever said that the BMW at 3000lbs would be "real world close" just isn't paying attention to the facts... The car makes way... WAY more than 150hp, and 3000lbs, or the equivalent of SMALL passenger to the existing car (2850 + 150lbs), is not going to come CLOSE to bringing this car back to the correct wt/pwr ratio for the class... 3200lbs would be closer to the mark... based on REAL HP figures given to the ITAC and CRB by actual BMW drivers...

Enjoy...
[/quote]
Relax Darin--I was just kidding. I know what they make. :rolleyes:

[BMW RACER]

Darin. Sorry but it sounds like semantics to me. Call it "The process" or "Alignment" To me it still seems a competition adjustment!

I know you guys have put a lot of work into this and I'm sorry if I missed or misunderstood something.

Remember this is only my opinion we're talking about here.



Oops. I forgot one very important question: Steve, is that a MK1 Escort under your name? I know this is OT but enquiring minds and all that.

[lateapex911]

Darin. Sorry but it sounds like semantics to me. Call it "The process" or "Alignment" To me it still seems a competition adjustment!


[/b]


Maybe it would be better termed a -

"A categorical correction of past mistakes and misclassifications via the use of a process to acheive a correct category alignment."

[Andy Bettencourt]

Maybe it would be better termed a -

"A categorical correction of past mistakes and misclassifications via the use of a process to acheive a correct category alignment." [/b]

http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/2004/03/08/guiness-inside.jpg
BRILLIANT!

[steve s]

yes it is .and is driven at least once a week. to car shows and club events.