It's here...

[robits325is]

Did anyone install and test a SIR on an ITS BMW E-36 to see the results before implementing this rule change or is this another SCCA experiment to be funded by BMW drivers?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by robits325is@Jan 20 2006, 09:43 PM
Did anyone install and test a SIR on an ITS BMW E-36 to see the results before implementing this rule change or is this another SCCA experiment to be funded by BMW drivers?

[snapback]71485[/snapback]

Do some more research on the topic Rob before we have to hear the back-handed comments.

AB

[mlytle]

Originally posted by robits325is@Jan 21 2006, 02:43 AM
Did anyone install and test a SIR on an ITS BMW E-36 to see the results before implementing this rule change or is this another SCCA experiment to be funded by BMW drivers?

[snapback]71485[/snapback]

sounds like the latter of the two...we all funded the scca experiment last year too. guess they are trying to run the bmw's out by killing our budgets. wonder what we will have to pay for next year? (those that are left....)

and where are the sir's for all the other cars in the class? if we are enforcing some magic formula for hp/wt, then why not make every car run an sir to keep the hp at the desired amount for each car?

or how about requiring all its drivers contribute to a fund to pay for the bmw restrictor costs.....it is effectively making everyone else's car faster, so they should pay for it!

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 20 2006, 10:35 PM
sounds like the latter of the two...we all funded the scca experiment last year too. guess they are trying to run the bmw's out by killing our budgets. wonder what we will have to pay for next year? (those that are left....)

and where are the sir's for all the other cars in the class? if we are enforcing some magic formula for hp/wt, then why not make every car run an sir to keep the hp at the desired amount for each car?

or how about requiring all its drivers contribute to a fund to pay for the bmw restrictor costs.....it is effectively making everyone else's car faster, so they should pay for it!

[snapback]71504[/snapback]

Now before this whine fest goes to far I am gonna tell you that others have spent tons of development money to try to keep up with a car that was clearly misclassed and exploited by to many wins by drivers with marginal talent and many track records by guys with exceptional talent. Don't be crying because your trophy harvesting days have come to a slow down. The E36 will still be the class of the field if it is driven as well and as hard as many of the guys that have put up with the misclassification of that car for all these years. I promise 350 bucks and a little hard work is not nearly the cost of the dyno time and header construction we have had to do over the years.

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 21 2006, 06:06 AM
Now before this whine fest goes to far I am gonna tell you that others have spent tons of development money to try to keep up with a car that was clearly misclassed and exploited by to many wins by drivers with marginal talent and many track records by guys with exceptional talent. Don't be crying because your trophy harvesting days have come to a slow down. The E36 will still be the class of the field if it is driven as well and as hard as many of the guys that have put up with the misclassification of that car for all these years. I promise 350 bucks and a little hard work is not nearly the cost of the dyno time and header construction we have had to do over the years.

[snapback]71506[/snapback]

yeah, and all that development resulted in your cars being closer to the limit and FASTER by your choice. if you hadn't done that work already, then your cars weren't fully prepared. that ain't the bmw's fault. if you wanted to build to the limit, you had to do that work anyway. trying to compare that with scca experiments isn't even close to a valid argument. we have to do all the same work, to make the car slower. twice. after we invested time and effort to make the car faster in the first place. $350? yeah, right. that is only the basic piece. now add fabrication, other parts, more dyno time, etc.

this isn't about "crying about trophy harvesting days". spare me that bs whine. this is about repeated changes by scca causing yearly rework to the same cars. i just want to go race and have fun. having to shell out $1000 and a bunch of labor every winter just be legal and slower ain't very fun.

if for some reason a car was "misclassed" ahead of current its cars (including the bmw), i could still go race and have fun and there wouldn't be any forced cost to it. this is now the second year in a row of a significant mandated cost before bmw's can race legally in its.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 21 2006, 01:09 AM
yeah, and all that development resulted in your cars being closer to the limit and FASTER by your choice. if you hadn't done that work already, then your cars weren't fully prepared. that ain't the bmw's fault. if you wanted to build to the limit, you had to do that work anyway. trying to compare that with scca experiments isn't even close to a valid argument. we have to do all the same work, to make the car slower. twice. after we invested time and effort to make the car faster in the first place. $350? yeah, right. that is only the basic piece. now add fabrication, other parts, more dyno time, etc.

this isn't about "crying about trophy harvesting days". spare me that bs whine. this is about repeated changes by scca causing yearly rework to the same cars. i just want to go race and have fun. having to shell out $1000 and a bunch of labor every winter just be legal and slower ain't very fun.

if for some reason a car was "misclassed" ahead of current its cars (including the bmw), i could still go race and have fun and there wouldn't be any forced cost to it. this is now the second year in a row of a significant mandated cost before bmw's can race legally in its.

[snapback]71511[/snapback]

As much as the above sounds like a whine-fest, I have to agree, to a point. They should have just thrown 250 - 300 # at the car and been done with it.

I'm not really a fan of writing rules for one category, that are based on the rules of another other category. For a good example of how this doesn't work, look at the early limited-prep Prod rules. They made reference to IT head prep. Well, if you look at the '06 PCS, I'm pretty sure all those old IT references are gone.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 21 2006, 12:09 AM
yeah, and all that development resulted in your cars being closer to the limit and FASTER by your choice. if you hadn't done that work already, then your cars weren't fully prepared. that ain't the bmw's fault. if you wanted to build to the limit, you had to do that work anyway. trying to compare that with scca experiments isn't even close to a valid argument. we have to do all the same work, to make the car slower. twice. after we invested time and effort to make the car faster in the first place. $350? yeah, right. that is only the basic piece. now add fabrication, other parts, more dyno time, etc.

this isn't about "crying about trophy harvesting days". spare me that bs whine. this is about repeated changes by scca causing yearly rework to the same cars. i just want to go race and have fun. having to shell out $1000 and a bunch of labor every winter just be legal and slower ain't very fun.

if for some reason a car was "misclassed" ahead of current its cars (including the bmw), i could still go race and have fun and there wouldn't be any forced cost to it. this is now the second year in a row of a significant mandated cost before bmw's can race legally in its.

[snapback]71511[/snapback]

No you miss the point, Even continuing to try yo make more power and better handling there was nothing left. My point is we didn't quit trying even though a half an effort was able to beat us. And to answer your question , no a flat plat is not as good as an engineered SIR. With the SIR the car will stay very driveable up to the point that the HP get knocked of the top.
Lastly the classification of a pure overdog did more damage to ITS over the years than any other poorly written rule in the GCR. This is an effort to bring some credibility back to the class that I applaud.


Matt as far as the SAB goes it's it's another big excuse for not wanting change. I can see some of the issues with the GT cars but we don't have the same issue here. In the case we have a single inlet intake manifold and a car that is already running a 3" intake pipe past the MAF.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 21 2006, 02:09 AM
........
this isn't about "crying about trophy harvesting days". spare me that bs whine. this is about repeated changes by scca causing yearly rework to the same cars. i just want to go race and have fun. ......

[snapback]71511[/snapback]

Ok, then what would YOU want done? Keep in mind an entire class can spend as many buckets of money they want, but still come up short...not very fun for them.

So, SIR??? Or a smaller flat plate restrictor?
Or more weight? Lots of it?

I think you guys have been given a gift...a device that while requireing implementation, won't hurt your torque, your cornering speeds, your brakes or your raceability....

It is an attempt to level a field that everyone can see is lopsided.

There have been FAR more inequities over the years in IT...tha addition of new cars to classes at overly low weights have cost hundreds of guys THOUSANDs of dollars in marginalized value in both their racing experience, and their cars value.

You are not the first guy that has had to cross this bridge, and considerable thought and consideration was given to what would be the easiest (for you) and most effective way to handle your situation.

I'm sorry that you have been lucky enough to race an obvious overdog, (for years) and have had to endure several attempts to make things fair for all.

(You have no idea how many guys there are out ther right now thinking..."I wish I had their problems!!")