The ruling is in: 29mm SIR effective 05/01/2006.
April Fastrack
I'm a little disappointed test results were never published, to be honest.
tom
[edit: I wrote 2007 when I meant 2006... and the rules say 2005!]
Printable View
The ruling is in: 29mm SIR effective 05/01/2006.
April Fastrack
I'm a little disappointed test results were never published, to be honest.
tom
[edit: I wrote 2007 when I meant 2006... and the rules say 2005!]
I don't know if that was the place for them to be posted but I will push to make sure there is a write up posted somewhere.
AB
Where did you see that? All I saw was this -- >Quote:
The ruling is in: 29mm SIR effective 05/01/2007.
[/b]
"Improved Touring
ITS
1. Effective 5/1/05: BMW 325i/is (2 & 4 door) (92-95), p. 18, change the specs to read as follows: Notes: Trunk mounted fuel cell with no
larger capacity than stock. 29mm SIR required and must comply with GTCS section 17.1.2.F.4.i.10."
And this was at the top of that section
"All changes are effective 4/1/06 unless otherwise noted."
steve
Cripes. The flippin FT has a typo. All those tech bullitens are effective 4-1-06 unless otherwise noted. The date on the E36 item should have been 5-1-06, not 05.
AB
AB,Quote:
I don't know if that was the place for them to be posted but I will push to make sure there is a write up posted somewhere.
AB [/b]
Can you ask or find out why no results were posted as promised? Did they ever rule on the weight placement issue?
Thanks
dj
Read the FT.Quote:
Did they ever rule on the weight placement issue?
[/b]
Check the April fastrac thread DJ, it was addressed.Quote:
AB,
Can you ask or find out why no results were posted as promised? Did they ever rule on the weight placement issue?
Thanks
dj
[/b]
Hey Andy... Could you or George please comment on the 161hp dyno posted over on Bimmerforums that George was witness to.
Please tell me you have some other information regarding the need for placement ahead of the HFM (as Mr. David Finch points out to be the "issue") and its possible implementation garnered from the various dyno tests you witnessed/were party to.
TIA
Quote:
I don't know if that was the place for them to be posted but I will push to make sure there is a write up posted somewhere.
AB
[/b]
Here ya go. This dyno is a 29mm SIR on a freshly built (1 race w/ BMWCCA) Stickley motor, custom tune non-Motec. This is, excepting the 3 or 4 ponies Motec may provide, a max motor. I don't have the baseline or I would happily post it as well.Quote:
The ruling is in: 29mm SIR effective 05/01/2007.
April Fastrack
I'm a little disappointed test results were never published, to be honest.
tom
[/b]
An ITAC member was in attendance and witnessed that the install and dyno are legit. The car would not reve past 3k rpm w/ the SIR in front of the HFM.
And yes, I was fully aware of this dyno when I posted weeks ago. The owner of this car now states that he will not race with SCCA in any class.
http://fmjmotorsports.com/29mm%20SIR.jpg
The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision (although he did set a track record in Texas recently!).Quote:
Here ya go. This dyno is a 29mm SIR on a freshly built (1 race w/ BMWCCA) Stickley motor, custom tune non-Motec. This is, excepting the 3 or 4 ponies Motec may provide, a max motor. I don't have the baseline or I would happily post it as well.
[/b]
19whp taken off the top with 5 ft/lbs lost.
AB
Mea culpa, fingers got ahead of me and wrote 2007 (despite the 2005 typo in the FT... guess I moved a year in the wrong direction adjusting for the typo!).Quote:
Where did you see that? All I saw was this -- >
"Improved Touring
ITS
1. Effective 5/1/05: BMW 325i/is"[/b]
tom
We were told, by you, that the SIR would cap power, not cut it accross the entire usable RPM range. So much that, eh?Quote:
The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision (although he did set a track record in Texas recently!).
19whp taken off the top with 5 ft/lbs lost.
AB
[/b]
At least Finch is only charging a 25% restocking fee on the 27mm SIR. :bash_1_:
Well, on the bright side, the RX7 just got more valuable and, being as it is the car to have, folks building/tuning them will now have a financial opportunity.
Um... according to previous posts by the backmarkers, the SIR should penalize all motors down to a certain level, and the original horsepower level is inconsequential.Quote:
The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision
AB
[/b]
So then why do you mention it here ?
P.S. please stop misusing the word "decision". The process used here by the ITAC and CRB definitely does not meet this definition:
DECISION: a position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration; "a decision unfavorable to the opposition"; "his conclusion took the evidence into account"; "satisfied with the panel's determination"
RX3SP
Somewhat confused... I thought since the SIR doesn't affect airflow below a certain HP level a low(er) HP motor would be less affected. If the calculated output for the 29mm is 180 RWHP, wouldn't we expect a motor making 180 RWHP to be virtually unaffected and one making 205 RWHP to be losing 25 RWHP?Quote:
The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision (although he did set a track record in Texas recently!).
19whp taken off the top with 5 ft/lbs lost.[/b]
tom
AB, for a fact this BMW you know had a baseline of 180 rwhp without the SIR correct? If this is the case, #1. I don't believe this is a Stickley motor, I know for a fact that his baseline engines are much higher than 180 rwhp with FPR restrictors and without SIR's.Quote:
The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision (although he did set a track record in Texas recently!).
19whp taken off the top with 5 ft/lbs lost.
AB [/b]
Actually, you are only partially correct. The 944 is the car to have, if you want to win a race mano a mano.Quote:
Well, on the bright side, the RX7 just got more valuable and, being as it is the car to have, folks building/tuning them will now have a financial opportunity.
[/b]
However, in the new way of doing things in IT, there are no races without handicappinng winners until the RX7 wins.
so, you are right, in the new world world of Sissy C. A. Improved Touring,
It was over 180. I'll see if I can get the baseline. Also, and more importantly, comparing hp numbers from diffeerent dyno's is a tricky business. I've seen variation of 5% in stock E46 M3 motors from dyno to dyno. Heck, I've seen a dyno plot that showed a 100% stock E46 M3 making, if you assume a conservative drivetrain loss, 360chp. Obviously it was not....the dyno was just reading a bit high.Quote:
AB, for a fact this BMW you know had a baseline of 180 rwhp without the SIR correct? If this is the case, #1. I don't believe this is a Stickley motor, I know for a fact that his baseline engines are much higher than 180 rwhp with FPR restrictors and without SIR's.
[/b]
What's interesting about that run is what it really revealed. Not much. Scientific procedures require tossing out that data point as the A/F ratio was off the mark...by a lot. lok at the graph and note the lean condition. I understand that the baseline for that car also had similar issues with the A/F ratio. In short, that car wasn't a good indicator. Custom programmed chip or not, it wasn't putting down proper power levels in baseline trim.Quote:
Here ya go. This dyno is a 29mm SIR on a freshly built (1 race w/ BMWCCA) Stickley motor, custom tune non-Motec. This is, excepting the 3 or 4 ponies Motec may provide, a max motor. I don't have the baseline or I would happily post it as well.
An ITAC member was in attendance and witnessed that the install and dyno are legit. The car would not reve past 3k rpm w/ the SIR in front of the HFM.
And yes, I was fully aware of this dyno when I posted weeks ago. The owner of this car now states that he will not race with SCCA in any class.
http://fmjmotorsports.com/29mm%20SIR.jpg
[/b]
Observations show that the car does adjust for such things, and the jagged line might be an indication of just that.
It's too bad that those results were pretty much voided by the tuning issues going in. I know we all appreciate the owners time and trouble. And perhaps he learned something too.
A note on the SIR. I had expected to see a commentary regarding the best placement, but it appears that it's not there. From observations, I would advise that the SIR be placed AFTER the AFM. The AFM seems to like a clean and linear stream of air, which is best found right after the filter and before the SIR.
So, it should be installed in this order:
Outside air>air filter>AFM>SIR>TB>manifold> pistons, etc. All air, of course, must pass through the SIR.
Also, I have been informed that inquiries to the supplying companies indicate that only Raetech had sold any SIRs, and will exchange the 27mm insert for a 29mm insert, at no cost.
The sheets are up on Bimmerforus.com. 180whp is the baseline.
I hesitate to put words in the CRB's mouth before they post a summary but the questions regarding the power output are valid. 2 issues I am aware of:
1. The SIR needs to be placed AFTER the HFM. The velocity of the air seemingly freeked the thing out to the point the cars did not run well - AT ALL. Placing them behind the HFM brought back the driveability.
2. SIR's do have an effect on all states of tune as shown by this and other pieces of data. This was a factor the CRB had to weigh in their decision.
To the proponents of weight, the same can be said for that as well. If you are running an underdeveloped car, a weight set based on a cars potential (like all the weights for all the cars are) will hurt as well.
Here is the baseline run DoubleD.
http://www.soulspeed.com/images/race...20baseline.jpg
AB
:unsure: Obviously the SIR does not perform they way we were TOLD by ITAC. 161whp, what can you do with that? Is this the final word from the SCCA? Can someone from the SCCA step in and stop the madness from the ITAC and the CRB? This decision will hurt all car counts in ITS. The fight has been fought and the BMW guys lost......hopefully the SCCA regions realize this will hurt their bottom line. Some regions may suffer more than others. Does anyone care? Long live the MAZDA. Where can I get one of those?Quote:
It was over 180. I'll see if I can get the baseline. Also, and more importantly, comparing hp numbers from diffeerent dyno's is a tricky business. I've seen variation of 5% in stock E46 M3 motors from dyno to dyno. Heck, I've seen a dyno plot that showed a 100% stock E46 M3 making, if you assume a conservative drivetrain loss, 360chp. Obviously it was not....the dyno was just reading a bit high.
[/b]
Greg
You are right. I have the plot on my computer. Baseline indicated a power of over 180. To be exact, it was 180.01 at approx 6100 rpm. Torque was 174.69.Quote:
It was over 180. ....[/b]
Engine was reported to be a Stikley, one race, custom chip.
:o:oQuote:
You are right. I have the plot on my computer. Baseline indicated a power of over 180. To be exact, it was 180.01 at approx 6100 rpm. Torque was 174.69.
Engine was reported to be a Stikley, one race, custom chip.
[/b]
Jake,
Stickley builds one of the best motors. I thought the problem was that all the pro motors where something like 225whp. I'm lost here. Chuck's motors are just as good as Sunbelts. Help us out with the reason for the SIR at all if your findings were a pro built motor producing 180.01 whp. Are you telling us that if I pay Stickley $8,000 for an engine I will end up with motor after SIR producing 161 whp and a car weighing 2850 lbs. That's 20 whp less than an RX7 and over 150 lbs more. BAD TIMING, BAD DECISION.
Greg
I like where you say you are lost. You are right!Quote:
:o
:o
Jake,
Stickley builds one of the best motors. I thought the problem was that all the pro motors where something like 225whp. I'm lost here. Chuck's motors are just as good as Sunbelts. Help us out with the reason for the SIR at all if your findings were a pro built motor producing 180.01 whp. Are you telling us that if I pay Stickley $8,000 for an engine I will end up with motor after SIR producing 161 whp and a car weighing 2850 lbs. That's 20 whp less than an RX7 and over 150 lbs more. BAD TIMING, BAD DECISION.
Greg [/b]
No verification of 225whp has EVER been produced. Pure rumor. We have data from 180-210. I am sure there are lower versions out there - but who cares? The beauty of IT is that you can run your stock motor and have fun until you build to the limit of the class - then, and only then, should you expect to run at the front, should the driver be up to the task.
Did you read DJ's post? 180whp is NOT a good effort for a E36 325 in IT trim. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.
Your numbers example is a tough one. Is that car competitive? Nope...but it is 25-30whp off the mark right from the start so even if it ran unrestricted, there is no way it could compete with properly built stuff. Get in the game.
Quote:
180whp is NOT a good effort for a E36 325 in IT trim.
[/b]
Fine.
Then you or the ITAC or the CRB please post the other dyno sheets.
Also, while you're at it, how about an RX7 dyno sheet.... one without the 6 port valves still installed...
RX3SP
A good build with a chip only makes 198.6 on a dynojet with SAE correction. I know the owner and trust the numbers. The AF numbers on the sheet posted suck for power so try another example before you cry foul. The power curve is ragged at best before SIR and gets no better after. Total BS to use for any real arguement. I can make a Mazda dyno suck that bad if you want to use equal numbers. AB'S statement about this prep level is correct. :dead_horse:Quote:
I like where you say you are lost. You are right!
No verification of 225whp has EVER been produced. Pure rumor. We have data from 180-210. I am sure there are lower versions out there - but who cares? The beauty of IT is that you can run your stock motor and have fun until you build to the limit of the class - then, and only then, should you expect to run at the front, should the driver be up to the task.
Did you read DJ's post? 180whp is NOT a good effort for a E36 325 in IT trim. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.
Your numbers example is a tough one. Is that car competitive? Nope...but it is 25-30whp off the mark right from the start so even if it ran unrestricted, there is no way it could compete with properly built stuff. Get in the game.
[/b]
:rolleyes: AB,Quote:
I like where you say you are lost. You are right!
No verification of 225whp has EVER been produced. Pure rumor. We have data from 180-210. I am sure there are lower versions out there - but who cares? The beauty of IT is that you can run your stock motor and have fun until you build to the limit of the class - then, and only then, should you expect to run at the front, should the driver be up to the task.
Did you read DJ's post? 180whp is NOT a good effort for a E36 325 in IT trim. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.
Your numbers example is a tough one. Is that car competitive? Nope...but it is 25-30whp off the mark right from the start so even if it ran unrestricted, there is no way it could compete with properly built stuff. Get in the game.
[/b]
If 180 whp isn't a good effort for ITS why was the goal set for 180whp with the SIR???????? I know Chuck's engine do produce more than that AB. If I'm Chuck, I'm pissed that you said this engine he built isn't a good effort.
Greg
All along we've had this idea that the BMW owners were given a gift with the SIR, right? It'll lop the top off and leave the rest alone. Are we putting that concept to rest as a result of this testing? What I'm seeing is a motor that got leaner and lost HP even though it was (unrestricted) making below the calculated max for the SIR size tested.Quote:
Your numbers example is a tough one. Is that car competitive? Nope...but it is 25-30whp off the mark right from the start so even if it ran unrestricted, there is no way it could compete with properly built stuff. Get in the game.[/b]
With a wry smile I note that losing HP + needing to tune (note the tune got leaner with the SIR in place) + having to come up with new intake + buying an SIR feels like substantially less of a "gift".
tom
semi off topic, something I've been meaning to say for a while:
I dunno if I have to note this, but I am a BMW owner. I am not, nor have I ever, attempted to cast aspersions on the ITAC or their lineage. They are volunteers who (I suspect) are attempting to do what they feel is best for the class. I can't say I agree with the outcome of this process, but I also don't think they're trying to steal my lunch money and kick my dog.
Flatout motorsports?Quote:
Where can I get one of those?
Greg
[/b]
And that in itself sums you up. :015:Quote:
Flatout motorsports? [/b]
Are you serious? An unrestricted 180whp effort is WAY off the mark. Sorry to tell you. If you know Chuck's engines produce more than that, then why are you arguing that the above dyno plot was one of his engines? I don't care who thinks what about that comment, 180whp is NOT the result you are looking for in a all-out effort. Actually, it's about a 15% improvment. You need to be in the 30% range on these cars.Quote:
:rolleyes: AB,
If 180 whp isn't a good effort for ITS why was the goal set for 180whp with the SIR???????? I know Chuck's engine do produce more than that AB. If I'm Chuck, I'm pissed that you said this engine he built isn't a good effort.
Greg [/b]
Hello? Bueller?
LOL. Do you or do you not make money on ITS RX7's?Quote:
And that in itself sums you up. :015:
[/b]
26 ponies. Nice work!
Thanks for clearing this up on that car, Jake & AB. I would caution everyone when associating Chuck's name with this engine, as Plumbo said he might get ticked off :D , because there is no way in hell that's one of Chuck's engines. B)Quote:
You are right. I have the plot on my computer. Baseline indicated a power of over 180. To be exact, it was 180.01 at approx 6100 rpm. Torque was 174.69.
Engine was reported to be a Stikley, one race, custom chip. [/b]
What ever it is, is not what I would call a good baseline race car in which I would rely on it's data. Everyone needs to keep a clear head and not jump to any conclusions. Now we know what we have to use, I'm sure we will get other reports shortly. I just ordered my 29 mm SIR today. I know, at least for me I want to give it a try. If it doesn't work for some reason, I have other options.
I would of liked the SCCA to give us instructions on how to mount this SIR. It should be manditory to mount it a certain way.
dj
Everyone on this board has an opinion and I guess has a right to express it. We may not agree and have arguements--but it is just differing points of view. You on the other hand are way out of line and give this forum a very bad rep with your personal attacks and insults to the ITAC and others. If you have problems with Andy or others a PM is the way to go. Otherwise the Wannabee in your signature I hope holds true forever. We can do without people like you in IT.Quote:
You got your wish. So who's next for the SIR?Quote:
We can do without people like you in IT.
[/b]
Your little club is getting smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller.
Pretty soon you will win every race. Yippee! I'm a regional champion!
RX3SP
Actually, I have never pocketed one dollar. Someday, maybe. FOM is a part time business for all of us that is 90% Miata's and 10% RX-7's. Neither Nick or I own or race an RX-7 as of late 2005.Quote:
Your assertion that I am bias can be disputed by any ITAC or CRB member.
Was it nice work? You bet your ass it was.
AB
Back when I was a junior high school teacher, I had a kid announce in front of the class that I was discriminating against him because he was black. I gave him a pass to see the principal, so he could file the official greivance with the district, warranted by that kind of treatment. He didn't do it, came back to class, and worked harder.
The moral as it applies here?
If you honestly believe that any ITAC or Board member is letting a vested interest influence his/her/their club business decisions, you have an obligation to either (a) make an official complaint to SCCA, or (B) shut the hell up.
K
That was not a personal attack, it was a statement of fact.Quote:
Everyone on this board has an opinion and I guess has a right to express it. We may not agree and have arguements--but it is just differing points of view. You on the other hand are way out of line and give this forum a very bad rep with your personal attacks and insults to the ITAC and others. If you have problems with Andy or others a PM is the way to go. Otherwise the Wannabee in your signature I hope holds true forever. We can do without people like you in IT.
[/b]
The post was about a personal attack--not the sir. But then I don't post with no name and signature like you.Quote:
You got your wish. So who's next for the SIR?
Your little club is getting smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller.
Pretty soon you will win every race. Yippee! I'm a regional champion!
RX3SP
[/b]
DJ,Quote:
Thanks for clearing this up on that car, Jake & AB. I would caution everyone when associating Chuck's name with this engine, as Plumbo said he might get ticked off :D , because there is no way in hell that's one of Chuck's engines. B)
What ever it is, is not what I would call a good baseline race car in which I would rely on it's data. Everyone needs to keep a clear head and not jump to any conclusions. Now we know what we have to use, I'm sure we will get other reports shortly. I just ordered my 29 mm SIR today. I know, at least for me I want to give it a try. If it doesn't work for some reason, I have other options.
I would of liked the SCCA to give us instructions on how to mount this SIR. It should be manditory to mount it a certain way.
dj [/b]
The validity of this data, solid or not, is exactly why the CRB and ITAC didn't slowly leak the info piece by piece. Assumptions and conclusions would be based on a lack of complete info. Again, the BMW guys, the rest of ITS and all of SCCA are due the conclusions and results...I will push to get them out asap.
Thanks for your patience and level-headedness on this.
AB
Hey, its your decision to post here instead of posting a profit.Quote:
Actually, I have never pocketed one dollar.
AB
[/b]
Maybe you should see if "flatout-motorsports.ORG" is taken.
RX3SP
That is in direct contradiction to what David Finch told me when I told him about my dyno results. He stated it has to be in FRONT of the HFM to make the full 180HP. When I told him about my car and the other car not running past 3k with it in front of the HFM, he stated we need to do more development.Quote:
1. The SIR needs to be placed AFTER the HFM. The velocity of the air seemingly freeked the thing out to the point the cars did not run well - AT ALL. Placing them behind the HFM brought back the driveability.
[/b]
Why can't the CRB tell us how they got the car to run 180HP with the SIR in front of the HFM and give us the results of this final test where they tested SIR's up to 33mm?
This is in direct contradiction to what the ITAC and CRB told us the effect of the SIR would be. I can quote your post and others that state that the SIR only caps HP and it should not have affected my 180HP baseline.Quote:
2. SIR's do have an effect on all states of tune as shown by this and other pieces of data. This was a factor the CRB had to weigh in their decision.
[/b]
Yes, my car was lean and it has since been corrected.
So, the story changes - it went from "unless you have a full build making 200+HP, you won't be affected" to "YOU MUST DO A FULL BUILD INCLUDING MOTEC TO GET THE TAGETED 180HP".
It doesn't matter to me in the end as I will be moving on to NASA and BMWCCA. You guys can accuse me of taking my ball and going home and so be it. But, I can say I got kicked in the nuts and decided it was better to go home, than continue to get kicked in the nuts. :D I have no interest in fighting for position with drivers that I should be dominating.
Yes, I did get the track record by .1 second, but I thought track records didn't matter? :D
I am tired of all this and had made racing no fun at all. This is a great reminder of why I quit national SOLO II competition.
Bill Kim