A word from the CRB on the recent changes...

[lateapex911]

I'm posting this on behalf of Bob Dowie, last years ITAC CRB liasion, and current GT Ad hoc liasion and CRB member. As the SIR technology is new to us, he thought this explanation and listing of sources might be helpful and useful.

I would like to point out that this is the first time that I am aware of that the CRB has posted such a response to the IT community, and I'd like to thank Bob and the CRB for their efforts and the open channel of communication.



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.



An SIR is an optimized (in other words, the shape is designed to pass as much air as theoretically possible) opening through which all intake air must pass. It is the entry point for all air entering the intake tract. Instead of being a flat plate, it is more like a funnel, and is designd to have no affect on the engine, or it's characteristics until it's design limits are reached. The goal is to trim the top of the HP curve, but not affect any other part of it. Typically SIRs are smaller than flat plate restrictors in equal applications, but are more transparent during operation.




The CRB and the GT committee have been working on the single inlet restrictor system for the last few years. Certainly not a new idea as its been in use around the world for years, but not within the SCCA. There are many benefits; the same type of restrictor is equally effective regardless of the intake system used. Determining what actual cars are capable of making in the real world is subject to rumour and innuendo, and sources are often conflicting. So, the biggest benefit by far is the fact we have some idea of the power output of an engine equipped with an SIR. Flat plates are based on a percentage of the stock throttle plate size, what we don’t know is if the stock throttle body is oversize to start with in the particular car that is being adjusted. It’s a nasty catch 22, and one that leads us to set a restriction and keep going down in size until the performance goal is met. Which is difficult in other categories, but even more so in IT where on track performance isn’t utilized in the same way it is in other categories for classification decisions. The result is often unhappy competitors who feel targeted, and must re-engineer their cars, and suffer the expenses with every “adjustment”.



Thanks to David Finch and his associates at Raetech engineering www.raetech.com we have a solid picture for what the output potential is for an engine equipped with a single inlet restrictor (SIR). Raetech donated hours of engineering expertise and computer modeling time to establish what we can expect from a given restrictor size. In the testing done so far the modeling appears to be accurate. Raetech followed it one step further by making an optimized restrictor available. But they are not a spec part and competitors are welcome to make their own or choose from the other machine shops making them.

The design spec of the 27mm size is to limit crank horspower to 218-220.



cdamachine SIR info on website

.racegearbox Call for info

raetech SIR info on site



We don’t see this as an experiment that’s being put on the BMW owners back. We had a GT3 Nissan running at this years runoffs equipped with one as well as a couple of GTL cars; with all the restricted GTL cars using them this season. It is the direction we are heading in restricting engines through out the categories; yes its new technology for us, but the SCCA has been observing the implementation by other sanctioning bodies and feels confident in the devices effect.. And like any thing new it will take time and require some effort as it’s implemented but we firmly believe in the system and its ability to restrict power to known level allowing us to bring in new cars without displacing the old. We certainly intend this to be the last change given the current class structure.



No committee or board in the SCCA likes to make competitors change their cars. But if changes are necessary they have a responsibility to make the hard decisions. This is one of these times.



Bob Dowie, CRB member, 2005 ITAC liasion, 2006 GT liasion.

Here's a computer model:

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

I really appreciate Bob taking time to put that together for us. However, I have an issue w/ the first paragraph. What's the cutoff point, where you get an SIR in lieu of lead? When the 2.0 16v VWs went from ITS to ITA, they got ~250# of lead. That's about what was being bandied about for the E36. Nobody seemed overly concerned w/ throwing 250# at the VWs, yet now it's not a 'good option'?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 23 2006, 07:45 PM
Jake,

I really appreciate Bob taking time to put that together for us. However, I have an issue w/ the first paragraph. What's the cutoff point, where you get an SIR in lieu of lead? When the 2.0 16v VWs went from ITS to ITA, they got ~250# of lead. That's about what was being bandied about for the E36. Nobody seemed overly concerned w/ throwing 250# at the VWs, yet now it's not a 'good option'?

[snapback]71804[/snapback]

So what? does the 250lbs put the VW over 3000lbs? careful what you wish for Bill cause I would have looked hard at an SIR. The other question I would pose is were the VW's making weight in ITS? maybe it was determined they couldn't so the 250 is not really 250.

Thanks Bob for rappin with us.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 23 2006, 09:02 PM
So what? does the 250lbs put the VW over 3000lbs? careful what you wish for Bill cause I would have looked hard at an SIR. The other question I would pose is were the VW's making weight in ITS? maybe it was determined they couldn't so the 250 is not really 250.

Thanks Bob for rappin with us.

[snapback]71810[/snapback]

Joe, I don't want to get in an arguement w/ you over this, but the things you listed are red herrings. The E46 323 is already at 3000#, and the Supra is well North of it. And yes, you can get an A2 Golf to 2220# Besides, AFAIK, there's nothing in the process that takes into account if a car can get to its spec weight or not. In fact, IIRC, the only time this has come up, is in the case of the New Beetle, where it was felt that the car couldn't get to it's ITB weight. However, Jake has said that some of the cars on the recent list of cars that were adjusted, probably won't be able to make that new weight.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 23 2006, 08:15 PM
Joe, I don't want to get in an arguement w/ you over this, but the things you listed are red herrings. The E46 323 is already at 3000#, and the Supra is well North of it. And yes, you can get an A2 Golf to 2220# Besides, AFAIK, there's nothing in the process that takes into account if a car can get to its spec weight or not. In fact, IIRC, the only time this has come up, is in the case of the New Beetle, where it was felt that the car couldn't get to it's ITB weight. However, Jake has said that some of the cars on the recent list of cars that were adjusted, probably won't be able to make that new weight.

[snapback]71814[/snapback]

And Bill I think it has been stated that the ITAC asked for weight both times the E36 has been adjusted. This is a new deal and the great thing is if it truely works as good as I believe it will we may be able to off the E46 and Supra an alternate weight with an SIR. wouldn't that be cool if the crs actually got built because they weren't pigs? I guess you just twist me a little cause you want to shoot holes in anything new rather than actually investing a little research and a little faith into it.
There is a good group of people at the wheel here and other than a few poorly worded rules in the PCS (intent good wording poor) they have done some really good things.

I guess my point is I am not arguing that a 3300lb car is not safe I am arguing that with this technology we cauld have some good car classes and reclassed at a weight that would make them more fun and more in line with the cars around them.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 23 2006, 09:29 PM
And Bill I think it has been stated that the ITAC asked for weight both times the E36 has been adjusted. This is a new deal and the great thing is if it truely works as good as I believe it will we may be able to off the E46 and Supra an alternate weight with an SIR. wouldn't that be cool if the crs actually got built because they weren't pigs? I guess you just twist me a little cause you want to shoot holes in anything new rather than actually investing a little research and a little faith into it.
There is a good group of people at the wheel here and other than a few poorly worded rules in the PCS (intent good wording poor) they have done some really good things.

I guess my point is I am not arguing that a 3300lb car is not safe I am arguing that with this technology we cauld have some good car classes and reclassed at a weight that would make them more fun and more in line with the cars around them.

[snapback]71819[/snapback]

Joe,

That's not true, nor is it fair. Look back, I've applauded the work that Darin, et. al. have done, many times in the last several months, as well as in light of the recent changes. You should know me well enough by now, I'm all about internal consistency. It tends to eliminate surprises, and certainly takes away opportunities for people to cry foul.

It's no secret that you're a big fan of SIR technology. I agree, it's pretty slick stuff, and certainly has a place in Club Racing. However, given the success of the previous restrictor plate (and yes, I know, it's not the same), I would have thought that the CRB may have taken a 'less risky' option. I still can't help but thinking that the CRB is hoping to use this as an opportunity to validate their decision to use SIR technology in GT.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 23 2006, 08:42 PM
Joe,

That's not true, nor is it fair. Look back, I've applauded the work that Darin, et. al. have done, many times in the last several months, as well as in light of the recent changes. You should know me well enough by now, I'm all about internal consistency. It tends to eliminate surprises, and certainly takes away opportunities for people to cry foul.

It's no secret that you're a big fan of SIR technology. I agree, it's pretty slick stuff, and certainly has a place in Club Racing. However, given the success of the previous restrictor plate (and yes, I know, it's not the same), I would have thought that the CRB may have taken a 'less risky' option. I still can't help but thinking that the CRB is hoping to use this as an opportunity to validate their decision to use SIR technology in GT.

[snapback]71824[/snapback]

Well Bill it may not be true or fair but step back and read how negative that last line comes off. I don't believe there is any desire to validate soemthing that is already in play. The GTL guys are fully in development mode on this deal and the results are as stated in most cases. It's all about air and when you can't get anymore you can't make anymore power.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 24 2006, 03:15 AM
Besides, AFAIK, there's nothing in the process that takes into account if a car can get to its spec weight or not.

[snapback]71814[/snapback]

Actually, it's one of the first things looked at once a baseline weight is determined...

And, for the record, I happen to believe that most of the cars adjusted will be able to find legal ways to make weight, or get really close to it...

No way we've got them ALL correct, but I think we got most of them...

[lateapex911]

Bill, some general thoughts...

Yeah, I said some cars might have issues getting the last pounds off. Dieting is tough! But we think most cars can get close...very close, and it will help the overall class structure, even if they can't hit the last 5 pounds.

Remember, the whole PCA thing isn't about nailing the class on a pinhead. IT has too many cars, and the original philosophy is still in effect in many degrees. Maybe it would be better to say that "there is no guarantee of competiveness, but we will try really hard, within reason". OK, thats overly loose and general, but still an improvement from the original, LOL.

The VW got it's weight changed because it changed classes. IF the BMW changed classes, it woulf change weight too..like maybe losing weight if an uber class were to be created.

But...it runs at 2850, and has for awhile now.

[ITAC hat mode OFF]
We sent the E36 to the CRB with the option of weight, or the SIR. I liked the SIR option for a lot of reasons, some not really valid, technically!
1-We don't have to argue about what the car REALLY can make for HP. Which makes setting weight tough, if you can't pin down the real number.
2-It is cheaper in the long run than weight.
3-I don't like the idea of cars running (racing) on 7" rims and weight over 3000lbs. Maybe it's me, but I think it's getting into non linear tire responses, and so on. At some point, 100 pounds more is more like 150, if you know what I mean.
4- It's IT...I think tacking on yet MORE weight would be ball busting, esp to the guys who are ramping up their programs. Hey...a guy who's not at the front yet, sure won't be if he adds 200+ pounds! I know this might seem like a gimmie, but personally I see no harm in doing that where it's possible. Yeah, we could put SIRs on every car , but lets be real.
5- Its a really tamper proof technology. (Short of out and out blatant cheating, which can hapen in any configuration) The flat plate restrictor can be ineffective in ..errr....certain cars. I think the chances of revisiting this are much less likely than another round of flat plate restriction.


I see what you're saying on the weight, but I think it was the combination of a car already running the weight, the excessive amount needed and the CRBs confidence in the the SIR as the simplest solution for all parties to a rather sticky problem.

Personally, I think it's a great solution, and I feel it is totally in keeping with the IT philosophy, although it differs in a nuts and bolts way, it matches in others.

{Ok, ITAC mode back ON]

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

I knew that!

Joe,

SIRs may already be 'in play', but I don't think everybody is on board w/ how wonderful they are. It's my understanding that the debate on the GT site went back and forth on this one, and that there are still plenty of people that think it's a BS idea. So yes, it's 'in play', but it's hardly a known qunatity, in Club Racing. So you'll excuse me if I'm not convinced that there aren't some alterior (sp?) motives 'in play'. Especially when you look at it in light of the PCA rule (emphasis mine)

On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing
performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may
reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or
in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such
an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within
the vehicle’s class.

Jake,

it is known that the allowable weights may be impossible to acheive on certain cars.

some cars might have issues getting the last pounds off

I think you would agree that the tone of those two statements is significantly different. Anybody that runs w/in 25# of their spec weight, is playing w/ fire, when it comes to how accurate the scales will be. I don't think anybody would worry if they couldn't get that last 5 lbs off.

And what should it matter if a car changed classes, or was found to be light, per the process? If raising the weight of the car by 10% is too much, it's too much, period.

I can buy the non-linear tire response issue, to a point. But that arguement doesn't have much credibility when you have cars that were recently classed at 3000# (E46 323), and cars that are well North of that (Supra @ 3380#). And if 3000# is the 'cutoff' for 7" wheels, what's the cutoff for 6" wheels? You've got the Volvos in ITB at just shy of 2800# on 6" wheels.

I think tacking on yet MORE weight would be ball busting, esp to the guys who are ramping up their programs

"MORE" weight? That would imply that already got an increase in weight. And really, you worry about underdeveloped cars when you make these decisions? "Hey, these guys are ramping up, we can't slow them down." WTF???

And I'm glad that you think it's ok for some cars to get 'gimmes'.

I'll be happy to debate the use of an SIR over lead, but don't piss in my ear and tell me that it's raining.

[lateapex911]

Geez Bill, bad nights sleep?

Remember, those comments were my opinion....

But a point or two. "MORE" weight...as in to imply a potentially significant amount. (Although the weight on that car does have a rocky history) Again, MY opinion is that I think IT is a great place to play, and I think that the SIR is a good solution for the problem THAT car presents in THAT class at THIS point in history.

Remeber going in here that there was considerable disagreement that there was even a REAL problem, at least among the E36 owners, many of whom denied that the car was as capable as it was said to be. Sure...vested interest and all that. But they also said it was just a couple cars with the problem. Well, I think the SIR renders that argument irrelevant. The guys who weren't exceeeding the envelope still won't be, and the guys that were should now fit the process. Personally, I like that solution to THIS particular situation. Remember, we're talking about a car thats numbers are too fast for the process in the categories fastest class...it's a unique situation.

It is MY feeling that it hits the criteria described in the PCA definition.

Can't tell you about the Supra...before my time. (I would suggest it is a good candidate for an ITR class, however...as I said, I personally get uncomfortable having cars running at that weight...to ME it's uncharted territory. Maybe there is data on it that I'm just not aware of though...)

OK, thats all opinion..

Here's two facts-

1- There are no "Alterior" motives at play here. Period.
2- I know the difference of a urinal and an ear, please lets drop that analogy and commentary!

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

SIRs may already be 'in play', but I don't think everybody is on board w/ how wonderful they are. It's my understanding that the debate on the GT site went back and forth on this one, and that there are still plenty of people that think it's a BS idea. So yes, it's 'in play', but it's hardly a known qunatity, in Club Racing. So you'll excuse me if I'm not convinced that there aren't some alterior (sp?) motives 'in play'. Especially when you look at it in light of the PCA rule (emphasis mine)

Bill, like all things SCCA the GT guys have fought and bitched cause nobody want to have their own program touched. Hell I would bitch if an SIR was thrown at the 240SX 4 valve unless it was to move it to ITA. My issue is that along ith cars sometimes philosopy has to have a little adjustment to reflect thte times and available technology. The other issue in GT is trying to make SIR's work with sidedraft carbs and building airtight boxes. in This case we do not have that issue. I have to say any car that could be classed into ITS that I can think of wouldn't have an issue.

The Craftsman truck series will be using similar technolgy at Daytona this year. They are running a 1" thick engineered taper restrictor. From everything I have read so far this has the same effect as the SIR. Very little to no effect on drivability but knocks 40hp off the top of the truck motor. The great part for them was they didn't loose the ability to race and they didn't have to invest in a complete restrictor plate engine program. Now I know you all don't care about NASCAR but the fact is this is another good indicator of what the SIR program can be. You can bet your but that if the good ole boys thought they could find more out of theswe engines by starting another program they would be doing it.

The SIR will still require a fully developed and driven car Bill. The only real change I see is a person will likely be able to not buy that Motec as the benefit will likely not be there. But If they do buy the Motec to optimize their package the gains will be limited to the amount of air the SIR will provide the engine.

So in the end you need to look at it this way, it's a new day and another new opportunity for IT to gain new cars new drivers and as a community show we are not afraid of the future.

PS Bill I do have an alterior motive. It's called racing. I believe in this technology enough I believe it can fix alot of tweeners in every class we have from SS to GT and once the SIR is in place it is very little work to adjust the bore size to get it just right. Imagine being able to classify a car and have it be competitive in 2 years rather than the current 5 year plan we use now.

I am not asking you to believe me. I am asking you to do some research beside the GT forums on the subject and give it at least a little bit of a chance.

[Bill Miller]

Actually slept pretty well Jake. And I realize those are your opinions, that's why I addressed the comment to you. We can agree to disagree about the appropriatness of the SIR in the case of the E36 (see my comment in the other thread). As far as the 'disagreement' about there being a problem, the ONLY people that felt that there wasn't a problem, were the folks that ran those cars. Saying that they might have been biased is putting it mildly. And the 'couple of cars w/ the problem', were the ones that spent the time and money that it takes to develop a car to the limit.

And that's a pretty bold statement to make, that there are no alterior motives. Unless of course your are part of the final decision making process, I submit that what you have stated as a fact, is really your opinion.

And while you may know the difference between a urinal and an ear, do you know the difference between piss and rain? :P

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 24 2006, 09:30 AM
The other issue in GT is trying to make SIR's work with sidedraft carbs and building airtight boxes. in This case we do not have that issue. I have to say any car that could be classed into ITS that I can think of wouldn't have an issue.

Maybe I'm not understanding how the SIR is going to be implemented w/ the E36. Don't you still have to fabricate some type of airtight box for it, even w/ a FI system?

The SIR will still require a fully developed and driven car Bill. The only real change I see is a person will likely be able to not buy that Motec as the benefit will likely not be there. But If they do buy the Motec to optimize their package the gains will be limited to the amount of air the SIR will provide the engine.

Other people seem to disagree w/ you Joe. And if you don't need the MoTec, you don't need to fully develop the car. Ask Andy, Jake, Darin, or any of the other ITAC folks, they've pointed to some of those E36 cars w/o MoTec, and labled them as not fully developed.

PS Bill I do have an alterior motive. It's called racing. I believe in this technology enough I believe it can fix alot of tweeners in every class we have from SS to GT and once the SIR is in place it is very little work to adjust the bore size to get it just right. Imagine being able to classify a car and have it be competitive in 2 years rather than the current 5 year plan we use now.

That's great Joe, but the way I read the PCA section of the ITCS, that's not the way adjustments will be implemented. For newly classified cars, they'll adjust weight, and after the 4th year, it will be set. Restrictors only come into play based on a review of 'actual racing performance' (the way I read that, it means results BLEH!).

The other thing I'm a bit confused on, is that there seems to be some pretty open interpretations on design and location of the SIR. From the GTCS

ID of the Restrictor is listed on the vehicle’s spec line.
The Restrictor’s maximum ID must be maintained for a
minimum length of 3mm. Restrictor mounting/placement
within the intake system is free, but must allow
accessibility for measurement. It is acceptable to have
some minor disassembly of the intake system to provide
access to the Restrictor for measurement. Measurement
device and restrictor shall be similar temperatures when
used

Can you put it before the throttle body? after? before the AFM? after? What kinds of mods are you allowed to make to install it? What are you allowed to relocate to facilitate the installation? How do you define 'minor disassembly'?

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a lot that's left wide open w/ this one.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 24 2006, 09:24 AM
Maybe I'm not understanding how the SIR is going to be implemented w/ the E36. Don't you still have to fabricate some type of airtight box for it, even w/ a FI system?
Other people seem to disagree w/ you Joe. And if you don't need the MoTec, you don't need to fully develop the car. Ask Andy, Jake, Darin, or any of the other ITAC folks, they've pointed to some of those E36 cars w/o MoTec, and labled them as not fully developed.

That's great Joe, but the way I read the PCA section of the ITCS, that's not the way adjustments will be implemented. For newly classified cars, they'll adjust weight, and after the 4th year, it will be set. Restrictors only come into play based on a review of 'actual racing performance' (the way I read that, it means results BLEH!).

The other thing I'm a bit confused on, is that there seems to be some pretty open interpretations on design and location of the SIR. From the GTCS
Can you put it before the throttle body? after? before the AFM? after? What kinds of mods are you allowed to make to install it? What are you allowed to relocate to facilitate the installation? How do you define 'minor disassembly'?

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a lot that's left wide open w/ this one.

[snapback]71876[/snapback]

Ok Bill, I am done with this until you do some of your own research. Picking the corn out of the deal wastes my time and ends up being very frustrating. The will be no need to build a box because the E36 has an intake plenum and a single throttle body. The SIR will go in the intake line where ever the person ants to put it as long as all the engine intake air passes through it it will meet the kill test. Attached is a photo of an actuall raetech part. I hopoe this will make it clearer. I also disagree that a new classification should not be considered for a SIR if the performance model would indicate that HP is the only limiting factor.. I would say look at the Z32 300zx as an example. The only thing keeping that car out of ITS is the potentiol to make HP beyond the performance window.



PS. the reason I like the raetech unit is it is fully engineered and equally machined. It also has a replacable restrictor section so rather than spending the full amount on a new if adjustments are needed you can by that section for about a third of the full cost. I know the GT site has some engineering drawings on it but the out side diameter is 3 inchs so using it in conjunction with a cold air intake should be pretty easy stuff.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 24 2006, 11:25 AM
Ok Bill, I am done with this until you do some of your own research. Picking the corn out of the deal wastes my time and ends up being very frustrating. The will be no need to build a box because the E36 has an intake plenum and a single throttle body. The SIR will go in the intake line where ever the person ants to put it as long as all the engine intake air passes through it it will meet the kill test. Attached is a photo of an actuall raetech part. I hopoe this will make it clearer. I also disagree that a new classification should not be considered for a SIR if the performance model would indicate that HP is the only limiting factor.. I would say look at the Z32 300zx as an example. The only thing keeping that car out of ITS is the potentiol to make HP beyond the performance window.

[snapback]71900[/snapback]

Joe,

I've got no problem w/ including SIRs as part of the initial performance control on a car. It's just that that's not the way the rules are currently written.

While that Raetech part is nice, there's nothing that I saw in the rules that said you have to use their part (and let's not even go down that road!). And while I think it's great that David Finch and his company donated a bunch of time and effort towards the development of SIR technology, I'm not naive enough to think it was a totally altruistic gesture.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 24 2006, 10:34 AM
Joe,

I've got no problem w/ including SIRs as part of the initial performance control on a car. It's just that that's not the way the rules are currently written.

While that Raetech part is nice, there's nothing that I saw in the rules that said you have to use their part (and let's not even go down that road!). And while I think it's great that David Finch and his company donated a bunch of time and effort towards the development of SIR technology, I'm not naive enough to think it was a totally altruistic gesture.

[snapback]71905[/snapback]

While I may agree or disagree with the last part I will say this. If I were building another car that would have the need for this It would be one that was fully engineered like this one. My belief is you won't make one flow better and be legal but I think like porting you could possibly make one worse.

More size stuff courtesy of raetech..

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 24 2006, 12:39 PM
While I may agree or disagree with the last part I will say this. If I were building another car that would have the need for this It would be one that was fully engineered like this one. My belief is you won't make one flow better and be legal but I think like porting you could possibly make one worse.

More size stuff courtesy of raetech..

[snapback]71908[/snapback]

The only damn thing you are doing is making us spend more MONEY AND GIVING THE PEOPLE WITH MOTEC'S A BIGGER ADVANTAGE!! Lets see how mich did I spend on a restrictor plate.......PLUS ANOTHER $400.00 for a SIR, more $ for more dyno time & new chips!, next thing, I'll have to have a HANS thats another $800.00!
Enough is enough! NASA is looking better and better

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 24 2006, 02:07 PM
The only damn thing you are doing is making us spend more MONEY AND GIVING THE PEOPLE WITH MOTEC'S A BIGGER ADVANTAGE!! Lets see how mich did I spend on a restrictor plate.......PLUS ANOTHER $400.00 for a SIR, more $ for more dyno time & new chips!, next thing, I'll have to have a HANS thats another $800.00!
Enough is enough! NASA is looking better and better

[snapback]71939[/snapback]

DJ, your argument does not hold water....explain how the Motec gets a bigger advantage and please no BS, data only..I have been sharing real world info please do the same.

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 24 2006, 09:07 PM
The only damn thing you are doing is making us spend more MONEY AND GIVING THE PEOPLE WITH MOTEC'S A BIGGER ADVANTAGE!! Lets see how mich did I spend on a restrictor plate.......PLUS ANOTHER $400.00 for a SIR, more $ for more dyno time & new chips!, next thing, I'll have to have a HANS thats another $800.00!
Enough is enough! NASA is looking better and better

[snapback]71939[/snapback]

If you're that upset then go BMWCCA racing- no biggy. But your still going to need the HANS as it's mandated now. You have other options that's the beauty of a BMW or Porsche or Honda.

But before you go you should try to look at this with an open mind- it is a gift given all the possible outcomes.

And, I'd be SHOCKED if your area under the curve changed much, if at all, with the SIR, so all sorts of added dyno time is a moot point. Its only going to restrict upper RPM hp. How much time do you spend at 6700 or more?

R