The use of SIRs in IT

After reading the latest thread in the BMW section, about the SIR test results, I wanted to start a discussion about using SIR technology in IT. The more I think about the E36 situation, the more aggravated I get about it. The car got special treatment, plain and simple. The PCA section of the ITCS clearly states that restrictors will only be used in extreme cases, and only after a review of on-track performance (i.e. results). We were told that the recent realignment and adjustment of several cars, was a result of running most of the cars in the ITCS through the process. How does a mechanism that's only supposed to be applied after a review of actual racing performance, get applied to what's supposed to be essentially setting specifications as if the car were newly classified?

If it was really supposed to be a 'new day' for IT, and all of the cars in the ITCS were classified under the new process, why don't we deal w/ it as such? The weights should be set per the process, and after the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years, the performance vs. the rest of the cars in the class should be evaluated. If an adjusment is warrented at that time, that's when it should be made. The rule was put on the books, and w/in two years, it's already being set aside to make special allowances for one specific car. Why the heck do we even have a rule book, if this is the way things are going to be done?

Sorry for the side-track. Back to the discussion of SIR technology in IT. A couple of poster-child candidates for downward re-classification, the 1st gen. RX7 and the AW11 MR2. IIRC, it's strongly believed that these cars can not really be made much lighter, to get them to what would be competitive weights in ITA. By the same token, Darin and other ITAC members have said that they can't have much (any?) weight added to them, to move them down to ITB, since they would exceed the weight allowances for the cage tubing size specs. If we're going to adopt SIR technology in IT, this would seem to be the solution for these two (and any other cars in a similar situation). Don't increase the weight, but move them down to ITB w/ an SIR that's designed to limit the hp so as to achieve the desired wt/hp ratio for ITB. If we're going to use SIR technology as a performance-balancing tool in IT, it should be available to ALL cars, not just one that is getting special treatment!

While I think SIR technology can be a valuable performance-balancing tool, I think it's too new, and too untested to be used effectively in IT, and it creates more issues, questions, and problems than it's worth, at this point in time.

Let me ask this,and I ask because I really dont know. Will the SIR allow more of the newer 200+ HP cars, thats all they are making anymore into IT racing? Sooner or later they will become old enough to race IT or somewhere else. The 944S2 cold race IT with one???? Could turbo cars run in IT with one??? Could AWD cars be adjusted HP to run with one??? Could open a whole new flood of cars to SCCA in general.
The fly in the soup is that SCCA should pay for all this teating and get it off the back of drivers. Just had to say that I suppose.

Lawrence

Yep, given all the kee-rap that's been thrown around these last few weeks, I just want the CRB to follow the ITAC's recommendation, and that's to pull the throttle restrictors and tack on the weight. This will bring these cars into compliance with the exact same procedures used for all the others cars in all the other classes.

If they stay all bitchy and threaten to leave, buh-bye. - GA

Quote:

---

Let me ask this,and I ask because I really dont know. Will the SIR allow more of the newer 200+ HP cars, thats all they are making anymore into IT racing? Sooner or later they will become old enough to race IT or somewhere else. The 944S2 cold race IT with one???? Could turbo cars run in IT with one??? Could AWD cars be adjusted HP to run with one??? Could open a whole new flood of cars to SCCA in general.
The fly in the soup is that SCCA should pay for all this teating and get it off the back of drivers. Just had to say that I suppose.

Lawrence
[/b]

---

Lawrence, I have said this before. Who is the SCCA? The SCCA is you and me. Everytime we have the club spending money it is money that comes right out of our own pockets. Bill is right the E36 has gotten special treatment all along. It should have never been classed into ITS those are the facts. Now there are a bunch of them running and again they need special treatment (SIR) (restrictor) I have no problem with this. I have no problem with weight Idon't think weight will get it done. I do think the SIR is the right way to go and I do feel there has been a typical wrench in the spokes in how fast we tried to get this done. I am uncomfortable with the current process but I believe in the technology enough to stick with it. I see good people getting in and doing the work we should all be doing rather than bitching about how the philosophy of this class is being restructured with this new special option for a car that was a standout to start with. Second part of your question. Yes I would hope we could add other cars with this technology in the future. I won't go into AWD or Turbo's.

Joe, how can you say "I would hope we could add other cars with this technology"and say the BMW should not be in IT? :D said with a smile. SCCA has money paid by members to loan to pro,why not spend it on us and make us stronger with more members and different cars? Sooner or later NASA, PCA,BMWCCA and on and on will have all these cars. Not because they like it any better but because they were forced to drive there when they really would rather have driven with the SCCA. The greatest car club in the world. When the magic is gone, is all over, and the bleeding should be stopped by our club officials in general and not just the drivers. Maybe this BMW and the SIR thing is good for IT if it ever gets worked out before we run them off.

Anyway,sounds like the efforts to do the right thing is already being done and we should know in a few days what the BMW is gong to have to do to race in IT. Just may already be fixed with happy BMW's all over the place. :happy204:

Lawrence

Quote:

---

Joe, how can you say "I would hope we could add other cars with this technology"and say the BMW should not be in IT? :D said with a smile. SCCA has money paid by members to loan to pro,why not spend it on us and make us stronger with more members and different cars? Sooner or later NASA, PCA,BMWCCA and on and on will have all these cars. Not because they like it any better but because they were forced to drive there when they really would rather have driven with the SCCA. The greatest car club in the world. When the magic is gone, is all over, and the bleeding should be stopped by our club officials in general and not just the drivers. Maybe this BMW and the SIR thing is good for IT if it ever gets worked out before we run them off.

Anyway,sounds like the efforts to do the right thing is already being done and we should know in a few days what the BMW is gong to have to do to race in IT. Just may already be fixed with happy BMW's all over the place. :happy204:

Lawrence
[/b]

---

Lawrence I think you may have misunderstood or I didn't say it clear. The BMW should not have been classed originally. I think it and many others could and should be classed with this technology. Even in the classes that NASA requires dyno before they are classed the DYNO fees are the responsibilty of the competitor. There is nothing magic about the SIR other than it works. The magic is what size. With the bitching that has gone on around this I would almost agree with GA except that people are gonna complain no matter when or how it is done so lets just finish what we started here.

Quote:

---

Lawrence, I have said this before. Who is the SCCA? The SCCA is you and me. Everytime we have the club spending money it is money that comes right out of our own pockets. Bill is right the E36 has gotten special treatment all along. It should have never been classed into ITS those are the facts. Now there are a bunch of them running and again they need special treatment (SIR) (restrictor) I have no problem with this. I have no problem with weight Idon't think weight will get it done. I do think the SIR is the right way to go and I do feel there has been a typical wrench in the spokes in how fast we tried to get this done. I am uncomfortable with the current process but I believe in the technology enough to stick with it. I see good people getting in and doing the work we should all be doing rather than bitching about how the philosophy of this class is being restructured with this new special option for a car that was a standout to start with. Second part of your question. Yes I would hope we could add other cars with this technology in the future.
[/b]

---

Joe,
I agree with you, there is a place for SIR as long as they are tested properly and given enought time to implement them. You speak of money, my region has thousands in the bank and in cd's, why can't they be made to kick some of that back to National for testing? Just a thought. :D
dj

Quote:

---

Joe,
I agree with you, there is a place for SIR as long as they are tested properly and given enought time to implement them. You speak of money, my region has thousands in the bank and in cd's, why can't they be made to kick some of that back to National for testing? Just a thought. :D
dj
[/b]

---

DJ, Feel lucky your region has money in the bank a lot of them don't and are not managed well enough to get it done.

I agree with time to implement and was happy when the CRB backed off for at least 6 weeks. With an organization that races 12 months out of the year somebody will always be unhappy. What I don't agree with is the level of bitching and complaining and abuse of the Adhoc guys that are trying their collective asses off to make this series of classes the best that SCCA has ever had. (IT used to be that way) I don't like the finger pointing like somebody is doing this out of spite or conflict. This is simply not the case. When you run the numbers these guys have worked hard to fix a ton of poor alignment in IT that they had nothign to do with. They have worked hard to make sure peoples investments were not made instant backmarkers and they have come here and continously gotten there butts kicked by a select few for doing so. National could tack a testing fee on the sanctioning fees and for regions like yours with money in the bank there would be little effect on the drivers. For a region like mine it would mean an increse in entry fees and a reduction in entrys.

Time and tide wait for nothing. The BMW should be in ITS along with a very large crowd of other cars that could make use of the SIR to run there. IT is just going through its growing pains just like anything else. Heck, I wish I could not grow old and slower,I cant and SCCA/IT aint going to get around it either. Otherwise its going to become another class of older slower cars protecting their ranks. Improved Touring Stock cant run cars half my age(I'm old) for very long when the car market is making so many cars with over 200HP. More cars= more members=more racers=more money and a better show as well.

NASA is talking about running their nationals at Daytona in a season not to far away. NASA nationals and the Rolex 24hr all in the same mouth full. Soon they will have all the members and money they need. SCCA who? No time like the present to stop killing yourself off. SCCA has money,its their math that needs work. One for you and one for me is bad math.

Lawrence

Quote:

---

Time and tide wait for nothing. The BMW should be in ITS along with a very large crowd of other cars that could make use of the SIR to run there. IT is just going through its growing pains just like anything else. Heck, I wish I could not grow old and slower,I cant and SCCA/IT aint going to get around it either. Otherwise its going to become another class of older slower cars protecting their ranks. Improved Touring Stock cant run cars half my age(I'm old) for very long when the car market is making so many cars with over 200HP. More cars= more members=more racers=more money and a better show as well.

NASA is talking about running their nationals at Daytona in a season not to far away. NASA nationals and the Rolex 24hr all in the same mouth full. Soon they will have all the members and money they need. SCCA who? No time like the present to stop killing yourself off. SCCA has money,its their math that needs work. One for you and one for me is bad math.

Lawrence
[/b]

---

No they don't Lawrence, they belong in a class w/ a performance envelope above ITS. Seriously, how many people are going to want to run their car where they have to choke it down 10%, 15%, 20%, or 25% over what it could make w/ a standard IT tune, and no SIR? Hamstringing cars so that they fit in a class sounds way more like Prod than IT.

I'm already on record but will say it again: Using SIR's in IT is going to be viewed down the road as a turning point for the category, in a less-than-positive direction.

I completely believe that the technology can work. However, it represents a complete departure from first principles that have driven IT rules since the classes were first created. SIRs have already been suggested as a way to deal with cheating (as opposed to actually enforcing the rules?), and red herrings abound. I sarcastically suggested that we ought to just go to IT27, IT23, IT19, and IT15 (or whatever, by SIR diameter), but I'll bet you a cookie that if this technology sticks on the e36, we'll see it propegate to the other classes in short order.

Further, I wager it will be on a case-by-case basis as a blunt instrument to fix detail issues, creating multiple levels of preparation and differing fundamental specifications within classes, rather than applied wholesale. It will be bad (opinion) to use SIRs at all but it would be worse to use them inconsistently - a step that drags IT one step closer to all of the things that I think are wrong with Production.

Whatever the result of the research currently underway, those who want to whine will whine. Just like everything else in our culture, the degree to which an individual or group views the process as "fair" will be directly relative to their personal beneft from the outcome - or will vary with its square, more likely.

Finally, the CRB made the decision. It seems a little unfair to make policy for political reasons (yeah, I know) and then dump the details back into the laps of the ITAC, to either make it work or look like donkeys if it doesn't. For their part, the ITAC has to find an SIR that nets a specific approximate reduction in power, for a group of entrants, for some of whom ANY decrease is likely to be seen as a personal vendetta.

Call a Mulligan and bust out the lead or do what we seem unable to do, and create another damn class, indexed to the performance of a full-house e36 325 at the minimum weight it can practically achive in IT trim.

K

Short version: SIR in IT is a hideously bad idea. IMO, IT is being used as a guinea pig for GT...and eventually Prod.

SIR takes us down the path of equalizing performance, and the stated philosophy of IT specifically does not guarantee equality. Some cars are winners. Some cars are pigs. Prepare to hire fullt-time staff to deal with the annual changes and fiddling if IT goes down this road (....and the turn signal is already on....)

Bad bad bad idea.

Quote:

---

DJ, Feel lucky your region has money in the bank a lot of them don't and are not managed well enough to get it done.

I agree with time to implement and was happy when the CRB backed off for at least 6 weeks. With an organization that races 12 months out of the year somebody will always be unhappy. What I don't agree with is the level of bitching and complaining and abuse of the Adhoc guys that are trying their collective asses off to make this series of classes the best that SCCA has ever had. (IT used to be that way) I don't like the finger pointing like somebody is doing this out of spite or conflict. This is simply not the case. When you run the numbers these guys have worked hard to fix a ton of poor alignment in IT that they had nothign to do with. They have worked hard to make sure peoples investments were not made instant backmarkers and they have come here and continously gotten there butts kicked by a select few for doing so. National could tack a testing fee on the sanctioning fees and for regions like yours with money in the bank there would be little effect on the drivers. For a region like mine it would mean an increse in entry fees and a reduction in entrys.
[/b]

---

Hey Joe, I do feel lucky to be in a region with many thousands in the bank, I think I will ask the what they are going to do with all of it?. hehe
I have been nothing but be genious about trying to accumulating information and I shared as much info that I could. But no seems interested about the apples to apples test method. I'll say it again like NASA, the SCCA should use for info or what ever they see fit, 1 type of dyno. Lets try and keep things relative. You know I'm not against the SIR I just don't want to be limited by HP one one dyno while some else is using another dyno which shows them at lower numbers. Fair is fair, right? It is unfortunate to have people babbling instead of being constructive. If you don't have anything constructive to add to conversation, stay the hell out of it.
Maybe there should be representatives for each manufacture whom only can talk to the CRB or the ITAC. I would hate to be the BMW representative right now. hehe
dj
PS Joe thanks for RC Eng, they did a great job on my injectors.

Quote:

---

It is unfortunate to have people babbling instead of being constructive. If you don't have anything constructive to add to conversation, stay the hell out of it.[/b]

---

Well...gee...thanks for setting the bounds of the discussions here. In the future, we'll all just run any postings past you first, and you can approve them as 'acceptable content'.

Are you really a pretentious arse, or are you just practicing ?

If an SIR caps max HP, then why not make everyone run one in ITS...same diameter so no one has more than 220 CHP?? Seems only fair...If an RX7 can only muster 190, then it will be un affected...if my GSR pumps out 172, then in theory it will not change a thing...I think SIR tech is a downward spiral for IT as it ads questions that cant be answered now for an entry level racing series...add weight to the BMW and test it somewhere else first...

It is very interesting that the SIR is even here. It is a step in a different direction for IT and while I do feel it is meritorious, it is clearly unique in its application. It is bothersome to me in some regards though. As I see it the "natural" (ie harmonious with the IT rulebook) thing to do was to add weight- it was cheap and simple. The e36 was given a (IMO) huge break by not having to lug around all that weight but it was not good enough. Soooo, the SIR was introduced......still not good enough!

What is a LOGICAL solution to solve this issue? (Responses from fellow BMW guys would be great and interesting.)


Soooo, here's where I'm forced to get sarcastic and point out the IT inconsistencies and rulebook absurdity.

We've got fancy MOTECS and a washerbottle!
We've got our turnsignal stalks and an SIR!
We've got spherical bushings....errr....bearings....err.....thing-a-ma-dinga's and a central locking system!

The list just keeps growing.

There is a system in place. Like it or not--there IS a system that is fair and unbiased and works universally.

I say:
Give the e36 the weight, listen to the threats, let the dust settle and let's race.

Let's get back to basics gentlemen..........or let's continue to head in different, inconsistent directions......but, if we do that then we might as well throw out the washerbottle and the stalks because the "original intent" isn't original or respected.


R

Quote:

---

Are you really a pretentious arse, or are you just practicing ?
[/b]

---

Thank you for helping me make my point! Very rational and definately constructive. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

If an SIR caps max HP, then why not make everyone run one in ITS...same diameter so no one has more than 220 CHP?? Seems only fair...If an RX7 can only muster 190, then it will be un affected...if my GSR pumps out 172, then in theory it will not change a thing...I think SIR tech is a downward spiral for IT as it ads questions that cant be answered now for an entry level racing series...add weight to the BMW and test it somewhere else first...
[/b]

---

it's being used many other places. IT is not being used as a test case.

Quote:

---

Finally, the CRB made the decision. It seems a little unfair to make policy for political reasons (yeah, I know) and then dump the details back into the laps of the ITAC, to either make it work or look like donkeys if it doesn't. For their part, the ITAC has to find an SIR that nets a specific approximate reduction in power, for a group of entrants, for some of whom ANY decrease is likely to be seen as a personal vendetta.

[/b]

---

Kirk,

While I can't say I'm in disagreement with the other points you raised, I feel compelled to set the record straight (as opposed to the supposition above).

1) If there is any politics being played out here, I am unaware of it. If I felt there were politics being played, I would personally raise hell, my position on the ITAC be damned. I don't think I'm the only ITAC member who would do ths either.

2) The CRB absolutely did NOT "dump the details on the ITAC." It has already been stated that the ITAC recommended two possible courses of action. The CRB did not choose the ITAC's first choice, but that is their preragotive. We are an advisory committee. We do NOT make rules, only suggestions. It is fully within the CRB's rights to make their own decision. The size was determined with some consultation and the CRB didn't dump anything on us. The ITAC isn't working alone or in a vacuum on this issue either.

I respect you and value your input, even if I disagree. In fact, I've disagreed with you (whether or not I expressed it) and you have managed to change my mind on some issues. I don't think the above was worthy of you.

All VERY well stated, George! B)

I may have been hyperbolic about the CRB dumping on you guys but my opinion on the SIR decision being driven by politics remains unshaken.

I don't know what process you all used to come up with those two options but there was a motivation somewhere for the CRB to choose the one that is frankly outside of the established framework for classification and specification, by defining the e36 as a de facto "most extreme situation," and imposing an air restrictor on them before the minimum weight was ever raised. The simplest remedy for maintaining equity, prescribed by the ITCS in a section less than two years old, was not applied in this case. There is a reason and by definition, it is driven by other considerations of governance - the definition of politics applied in the business of examining policy.

Put differently, if something looks goofy, there's usually a reason for it. I tend to assume that decisions like this don't get made by accident, so there MUST be some motivation to tackle this issue differently than ANY other classification question in the category. That motivation comes out of the CRB's desire to achieve some end. That is politics.

If your response is the result of thinking that I was using the contemporary, derisive definition of "politics" - of smoke-filled rooms, indian casinos, golf trips, and (in NC) PAC checks with the payee's name left blank - you are making an inference that I didn't intend.

Why DID the CRB choose the SIR option? FInd the real answer to that question and we know the motivation, which should illuminate the desired policy outcome. It would be nice for the ITAC'ers to know what that intention was, because they have now (had dumped on them, inherited, joyfully undertaken, whatever) the detail responsibility for activating that policy. What if the testing yields findings that are contrary to the first principals, desired outcome, or hoped-for externalities of the CRB's policy decision? I'm afraid that you're going to be left flapping in the wind.

If nothing else, this isn't such an auspicious step for the PCA concept, that was REALLY looking rosy for while here.

K

EDIT - It SHOULD go without saying but since I may have been misconstrued earlier, I am most certainly NOT suggesting that any of the ITAC members are guilty of any sneaky dealing here. I have a ton of faith in them and their hard work, which is frankly why I'm kind of pissed off about this most recent development.

In no particular order...

I disagree with Bills ascertation that the use of the SIR was not in keeping with the outlines for it's implementation. The E36 is, as has been discussed, a car that is really too much for the class it lives in. Adding it to the class was a great idea......except......it exceeded it's percieved potential. Adding a restrictor is perfectly fine, and who's to say that it wasn't observed??? I will admit that I would prefer not to use an SIR, but for THIS car, in THIS class, as THIS point in time, it is a very reasonable alternative.

Personally, it would be MUCH easier, for me, to just slap weight on it, based on the potential power and torque, and be done with it. I wouldn't have to drive 4 hours for each test session, lose a workday (and the money associated with that,) and neither would the other members of the ITAC and the CRB. When all is said and done, I imagine hours and hours of dyno time will be burned. If that's what it takes to acheive the results needed, and the confidence needed, fine. If the end result isn't what the CRB or the ITAC likes, then other options would, I imagine, be considered. That's the key here, it isn't about research for another class, it's about solving a unique problem in ITS in the best way.

I WOULD prefer to move it up a class...ooops! There is no class up there. Gotta work on that.

Having SCCA pay to pull guys motors out of their car and testing them on one dyno is a great idea. How can we do it?

Lets not drag the financial trail of club income going to Pro into this. If you don't like it, do some research, write your letters, start a movement and change it. It IS your club. But that's not relevant here.

Finally, the CRB hasn't "dumped this in the ITACs lap". Much of the testing will be done on a CRB members private dyno, at his expense. As far as I am concerned, the CRB is diggin in and doing the work. I haven't asked anyone on the CRB the specific question of whether the SIR was chosen as a test bed for GT use, but I have discussed the reasons for it's choice ...at length....and they were all specific to the situation at hand.

So Jake, you admit that the E36 got special treatment, that no other car in IT got? And I'm sorry, but I hardly consider a radical departure from the way things are done for other cars, to accomodate one car, so as to hopefully minimize the agida (sp?) of the drivers of said car, "very reasonable". As far as your contention that the SIR for the E36 was in keeping w/ its guidelines for implementation, how do you justify that when the spec weight was not set, per the process outlined in the ITCS? The way I read that rule, a restrictor is to be applied only when the original process weight is deemed incorrect, and the other PCA options (weight or reclassification) are either not an option (no class to move up to), or for some reason, set aside.

I know you stronly believe that the tire response goes non-linear for cars weighing near what the process weight for the E36 is, and I can accept that belief. Where that justification for an SIR instead of weight fails, is when we're told that the Supra, at 230# North of the process weight for the E36, was looked at and felt to be ok at its weight. The fact that one car was given a weight break and an SIR, and another similar one wasn't, only confirms Kirk's position that the SIR for the E36 was a politically-motivated choice.

Quote:

---

So Jake, you admit that the E36 got special treatment, that no other car in IT got? And I'm sorry, but I hardly consider a radical departure from the way things are done for other cars, to accomodate one car, so as to hopefully minimize the agida (sp?) of the drivers of said car, "very reasonable". As far as your contention that the SIR for the E36 was in keeping w/ its guidelines for implementation, how do you justify that when the spec weight was not set, per the process outlined in the ITCS? The way I read that rule, a restrictor is to be applied only when the original process weight is deemed incorrect, and the other PCA options (weight or reclassification) are either not an option (no class to move up to), or for some reason, set aside.

I know you stronly believe that the tire response goes non-linear for cars weighing near what the process weight for the E36 is, and I can accept that belief. Where that justification for an SIR instead of weight fails, is when we're told that the Supra, at 230# North of the process weight for the E36, was looked at and felt to be ok at its weight. The fact that one car was given a weight break and an SIR, and another similar one wasn't, only confirms Kirk's position that the SIR for the E36 was a politically-motivated choice.
[/b]

---

Bill, you argument is getting very old we all know were you stand, now how about giving it a rest. You are just flat wearing people out dude. In a perfect world the supra that nobody wants to race anyway will get the SIR just to make you happy. I believe it should get the SIR and drop some weight. But lets get through the first one before we try to take all of them at one shot.

Joe, maybe you should just skip on by my posts then. I can tell you this much, your attempts to 'shout me down' are a waste of your time.

Quote:

---

So Jake, you admit that the E36 got special treatment, that no other car in IT got? And I'm sorry, but I hardly consider a radical departure from the way things are done for other cars, to accomodate one car, so as to hopefully minimize the agida (sp?) of the drivers of said car, "very reasonable". .
[/b]

---

Bill, my feeling is that the E36 got different, not "special" treatment, but where did you get my quote that we don't want to give the BMW guys "agida"? The idea, again, is to bring the car into the preformance envelope, albeit in a different way. Again, THIS car can not go up a class...at THIS point in time...and weight was looked at, but clearly there were issues that caused pause in it's implementation.

As to your earlier comment that I think you said gave you an "icky" feeling, perhaps you read into my comment, or I was guilty of using words without secondary reminders of my intent...

It's late so I'm going to skip searching for the exact post (a mistake, i am sure), but if you think I meant that we were "protecting" the E36's competiveness, I apologise. We are trying to make the car fit the process, and the process should result in a balanced and competitive situation. Idealy, the BMW should have no better, or no worse a competitve chance at the end of the process, than any other car.

Quote:

---

Bill, my feeling is that the E36 got different, not "special" treatment, but where did you get my quote that we don't want to give the BMW guys "agida"? The idea, again, is to bring the car into the preformance envelope, albeit in a different way. Again, THIS car can not go up a class...at THIS point in time...and weight was looked at, but clearly there were issues that caused pause in it's implementation.

As to your earlier comment that I think you said gave you an "icky" feeling, perhaps you read into my comment, or I was guilty of using words without secondary reminders of my intent...

It's late so I'm going to skip searching for the exact post (a mistake, i am sure), but if you think I meant that we were "protecting" the E36's competiveness, I apologise. We are trying to make the car fit the process, and the process should result in a balanced and competitive situation. Idealy, the BMW should have no better, or no worse a competitve chance at the end of the process, than any other car.
[/b]

---

Jake,

I'm really not trying to pick a fight, but let's not play word games w/ 'special' and 'different'. But, if you'd prefer to use 'different' than 'special', I'm ok w/ that. What you've said then, is that the E36 got treated differently than any other car listed in the ITCS.

This comment, straight from Bob Dowie's letter that you posted

Quote:

---

Regarding the BMW E36, the CRB chose to institute use of the SIR restrictor instead of increased weight because the car was already listed and competing at the current weight. The committee target weight would have had the competitors locating and installing legally removed stock components or adding a great deal of ballast. Neither were felt to be are good options.[/b]

---

And this from your post in the thread in the BMW Car sub-forum

Quote:

---

First, the CRB is on your side. They are not going to make any decision that could endanger the competiveness of the E36. [/b]

---

Are the things that, to me at least, give the impression that the car is being protected, and the goal is to minimize the ajita of the drivers. I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to Joe Harlan's philosophy that the CRB can just set aside rules, and then change them after the fact, to 'legalize' what has already been done.

Joe talks about nobody wanting to run a Supra. Well DUH, it's a pig at that weight, and shouldn't have been classed in ITS, w/ the power potential that it has. That's pretty much a self-fullfilling prophecy. I wonder how many would show up if they were spec'd @ 2800# w/ a 26mm SIR?

You should know me well enough by now, I'm all about internal consistency, and objective application of the process. "Different" treatment for one car hardly fits w/ that.

Quote:

---

Jake,

This comment, straight from Bob Dowie's letter that you posted
And this from your post in the thread in the BMW Car sub-forum
Are the things that, to me at least, give the impression that the car is being protected, and the goal is to minimize the ajita of the drivers. I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to Joe Harlan's philosophy that the CRB can just set aside rules, and then change them after the fact, to 'legalize' what has already been done.

Joe talks about nobody wanting to run a Supra. Well DUH, it's a pig at that weight, and shouldn't have been classed in ITS, w/ the power potential that it has. That's pretty much a self-fullfilling prophecy. I wonder how many would show up if they were spec'd @ 2800# w/ a 26mm SIR?

You should know me well enough by now, I'm all about internal consistency, and objective application of the process. "Different" treatment for one car hardly fits w/ that.
[/b]

---

Bill, you don't have to buy into the theory. It is being done all over the club. The CRB is finally getting enough sack to make hard choices and fix long standing problems and if it requires a rewrite of a rule it looks like they are willing to do it.

Nobody is racing the Supra because its not a great car in NA form. The car is a blast with a Turbo. There is not a huge following in any of the celica based cars and I have never understood it but its a fact. I have own 3 Celica's over the years and believe it or not Darin had a GTS at one time. I think an SIR would be good for the car but I don't ever see the car reaching RX7 or BMW numbers in popularity.

Bill, I am not attempting to shout you down. You just need to go back and look at how many times you have asked the same set of questions and gotten the same answers. One of the biggest resons I see for SIRs in all of our classes is it will put more models in less classes and we will have more racing and less parading in undersubcribed classes. I am all for another IT class when the time is right but I think that 240 to 300WHP is where that class ends up so we need to be able to control the topside of every class for the cars that don't fit any catagory.

Joe,

The Supra in question is the first of the non-Celica based ones. And like I said, I've got no problems w/ changing the rules. What I have a problem w/ is setting aside the rules because they don't jive w/ what you want to do. To me, it's really no different than the rationale that people use to justify cheating.

Bill,

First, nobody is looking to endanger the competiveness of ANY car....the BMW included. That said, the boards are trying to create a process, and administer it to make all cars as competitve as realistically possible.

Is it getting "special" treatment? Well, some think it is as we are spending more time on it....but we didn't have an egg timer rule on ANY car, and some were discussed at long length before being resolved. Others took no time at all. Ideally, every car gets "special" treatment, which means none do.....

I also differ from those who say that the car is getting treated in ways that are counter to the "IT philosophy".

Well, the philosophy is to apply a process to fit cars into four performance envelopes. It can be done with weight, or it can leave the weight alone and work from another angle. It also mentions "inexpensive" as a design goal. Assuming that means compared to other forms of racing...and I feel that the SIR accomplishes it's goals inexpensively, in the long run as well, compared to the alternative.

You have a point on the Supra, and I honestly can not remember (some calls were more than 5 hrs long) the Supra discussion, It is possible that it was considered a non issue as it has rarely if ever been seen on the track. Not saying thats the case, I guess some checking needs to be done there, but hey, maybe it should get a SIR slapped on it.

Quote:

---

Bill,

First, nobody is looking to endanger the competiveness of ANY car....the BMW included. That said, the boards are trying to create a process, and administer it to make all cars as competitve as realistically possible.

Is it getting "special" treatment? Well, some think it is as we are spending more time on it....but we didn't have an egg timer rule on ANY car, and some were discussed at long length before being resolved. Others took no time at all. Ideally, every car gets "special" treatment, which means none do.....
[/b]

---

Jake,

It seems that you've forgotten the distinction between rain and that slightly yellower liquid again.

Quote:

---

I also differ from those who say that the car is getting treated in ways that are counter to the "IT philosophy".

Well, the philosophy is to apply a process to fit cars into four performance envelopes. It can be done with weight, or it can leave the weight alone and work from another angle. It also mentions "inexpensive" as a design goal. Assuming that means compared to other forms of racing...and I feel that the SIR accomplishes it's goals inexpensively, in the long run as well, compared to the alternative.
[/b]

---

Actually Jake, the way the rule is written, the 'other angle' is supposed to be applied once it's determined that the original process weight is 'off'.

You really don't want to go down the road that uses SIRs as part of initial classification model. You have no idea how big that can of worms is.

Quote:

---

You have a point on the Supra, and I honestly can not remember (some calls were more than 5 hrs long) the Supra discussion, It is possible that it was considered a non issue as it has rarely if ever been seen on the track. Not saying thats the case, I guess some checking needs to be done there, but hey, maybe it should get a SIR slapped on it.
[/b]

---

No Jake, it should be used as another data point that supports the need for a class above ITS. Throw the SIR idea out, and work on getting ITR implemented. You've got 7-8 months to put it together, and get it implemented in time for the '07 season. I'll go on record as offereing to help w/ defining the class, and developing the car list.


Kirk,

LOVE the new avatar! :happy204: :lol: :smilie_pokal:

[quote]
(some calls were more than 5 hrs long)

Jake and the ITAC guys.......

I know how much time is worth both professionally and personally. Thank You for your level of dedication to our sport.

R

Quote:

---

No Jake, it should be used as another data point that supports the need for a class above ITS. Throw the SIR idea out, and work on getting ITR implemented. You've got 7-8 months to put it together, and get it implemented in time for the '07 season. I'll go on record as offereing to help w/ defining the class, and developing the car list.
Kirk,

LOVE the new avatar! :happy204: :lol: :smilie_pokal:
[/b]

---

I went on my regional message form to look for support to form a new class above ITS :cavallo: and all I got were people telling me to buy a car that's already classed or race ITE :bash_1_: . It seems that those who responded feel there's already too many classes to deal with as it is. That's why I dropped the subject, even if it's in the national regs doesn't mean they'll run it here as IT IS a reagonal class. I've resigned myself to just running ITE and being run over by the Vette/Viper crowd :wacko: Unless the SIR can be made to work, then we'll see if the 2.8l Z3 can be classed in ITS, the 2.5l Z4 is almost old enough to class, why can't I get my car classed?

James

Quote:

---

Jake,

It seems that you've forgotten the distinction between rain and that slightly yellower liquid again.
[/b]

---

You know Bill, I really try to remain honest and post with integrity. I also try to keep my posts, for the most port, on the nice side of rude. If you think I am using your ear to urinate in, I beg to differ...it isn't my nature to be that rude. I was merely trying to use different words to fine tune a written concept.

I think we'll just agree to disagree.

Quote:

---

You really don't want to go down the road that uses SIRs as part of initial classification model. You have no idea how big that can of worms is.
[/b]

---

Bill,

What makes you guys here think that YOU are the only ones who "have an idea"??? Don't kid yourselves... if you guys are talking about it here, it's been discussed before...

Quote:

---

Bill,

What makes you guys here think that YOU are the only ones who "have an idea"??? Don't kid yourselves... if you guys are talking about it here, it's been discussed before...
[/b]

---

Geez Darin, I had no idea you had a corner on the market for original ideas.