It's here...

[bimmerpower]

The SIR is just another blow.

Its been nice, but time to move on. Still not convinced that there was this overdog. Up here in the midwest, it was the RX7 taking the championship over top prepared e36...

This is one BMW ITS racer that is moving on. Maybe I'll regret it at the end of the year, but its time to try another venue. I'll re-evaluate next winter and see how things have shaken out. Tired of being the expiriment.

Wade

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by bimmerpower@Jan 22 2006, 11:33 PM
The SIR is just another blow.

Its been nice, but time to move on. Still not convinced that there was this overdog. Up here in the midwest, it was the RX7 taking the championship over top prepared e36...

This is one BMW ITS racer that is moving on. Maybe I'll regret it at the end of the year, but its time to try another venue. I'll re-evaluate next winter and see how things have shaken out. Tired of being the expiriment.

Wade

[snapback]71644[/snapback]

That's too bad Wade

A couple questions for you.

Where will you go?
How do you know what the SIR will do to you?
If you were spending the same money, but your car was going to be faster, would you balk at the expense?
Have you determined the sources and prices for the installation?
What level of prep is your car?

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by dickita15@Jan 22 2006, 09:59 AM
I admit you are right Kirk. Not many on this board have much first hand knowledge about SIRs.

I think that the IT use of these will be a little easier that the prototype cars as we have a single point of air intake.

your point about getting what they asked for is well founded.

[snapback]71580[/snapback]

Interestingly, the ITAC has gotten many letters about the E36 and that included letters requesting the use of further restriction, as opposed to weight additions.

Then there were letters that denied any problem, and some that said that other cars in S should get weight, but the E36 should be left alone, or have the existing restrictor removed.

Hopefully, we will be posting more SIR info in the very near future.

[bimmerpower]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Jan 23 2006, 05:14 AM
That's too bad Wade

A couple questions for you.

Where will you go?
How do you know what the SIR will do to you?
If you were spending the same money, but your car was going to be faster, would you balk at the expense?
Have you determined the sources and prices for the installation?
What level of prep is your car?

[snapback]71646[/snapback]

Well, at this point, I am 95% sure I am going to run the USTCC this year. Won't cost much more to run a pro series than what i spend on ITS today. I honestly don't know what the SIR will do, or how it will impact me. It's really not all about the $$. Theres a lot of re-doing the same development now 3 years in a row (initial build, restrictor, sir )... for an amatuer club racing series its a bit over the top. I have more time, $$ and development into my car than many pro cars have. The car certainly seems to have a big target on it. Not sure some will be happy till its gone, or finishing mid pack.

I just feel my time and $$ would be better spent in another series right now. Like I said, I may be wrong. I do know that the continuing "overdog" bashing is wearing on many BMW drivers. The couple I was close with were on the fence as it was last year with the restrictor... this will most likely put them over the edge to another series. There are lots of other options out there. ...

Good luck with all the changes. I truly do hope it works out better than it seems on paper to me.

Wade

[buldogge]

Three Things:

1) I prefer the SIR to the weight gain ASSUMING it works as stated/promised. There seems to be some question of this in review of various GT discussions...

2) Am I right in reading that the SIR functions with the stock intake manifold PURELY in-line with the intake tract ahead of the TB...without any sort of sealed airbox/etc. (as Joe Harlan alluded to)?
That is, it is simply an addition to the intake tube...ahead of? or after?...the HFM??

3) Simple value answer...What is the target RWHP # for ITS (or in this case for the E36)? No BS...simple number...simple answer.

TIA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by ed325its@Jan 22 2006, 11:20 PM

Please review Mr. Bettencourt's posts in this thread. He was very clear that the benefits of the SIR would protect the IT community from cheating.

[snapback]71642[/snapback]

Ed,

I mentioned cheating as it oertained to a generic restrictor plate. They can be defeated if you don't mandate the design. You made the comment that the issue with all the fuss about the BMW's were due to one or two cheater cars winning races. I would think that limiting the crank HP would put that idea to bed.

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by buldogge@Jan 22 2006, 11:31 PM
Three Things:

1) I prefer the SIR to the weight gain ASSUMING it works as stated/promised. There seems to be some question of this in review of various GT discussions...

2) Am I right in reading that the SIR functions with the stock intake manifold PURELY in-line with the intake tract ahead of the TB...without any sort of sealed airbox/etc. (as Joe Harlan alluded to)?
That is, it is simply an addition to the intake tube...ahead of? or after?...the HFM??

3) Simple value answer...What is the target RWHP # for ITS (or in this case for the E36)? No BS...simple number...simple answer.

TIA

[snapback]71651[/snapback]

Most of the folks in are struggle with the airbox because of individual runner intakes. There are planty of good boxes out there on the market but there seams to be the better mouse trap problem. I personally would install the SIR ahead of the MAF so the MAF sees when the air stream goes sonic. I believe the MAF will help compensate to a small degree which should hekp make the most post that can be had as the air stalls. I want to see these cars still be able to extract the maximum power up to the limits of the SIR. We don't need to drive them away and I don't believe there was ever any though of that. I believe that for every one car that gives up we will gain one and eventually get that car back once the system is shown to work.

As far as the SIR goes, I would bet that the fuel map changes are not going to be greatly different than what most folks have today.

[Bill Miller]

And the goal, Bill, wasn't to make winners out of less than 100% prepped cars, but to solve a togh situation in a class and make it better for everyone.

If I was an ITS guy who didn't own an E36, I would be really thankful that the E36 was now "reachable", regardless of what they have to do, or spend, to run at the front

Jake,

I never said it was the goal, and I certainly didn't mean to imply it. What I said, was that it was a potential result of the SIR rule. We've discussed SIRs on this board, and several comments were made about guys w/ less than full-tilt BMW programs not having to spend the huge time/dollars to be able to stay w/ the folks that did have the full-tilt cars.

Here's a quote from Joe:

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.

If that's really the case, now you've got a car that doesn't have to be developed to 10/10ths, that's going to run at the front. As I said, seems like the BMW guys got a gimme.

With the Supra @ 3380#, w/ only 11 more stock hp, and only slightly bigger brakes (299/290 vw 287/280), using the "it'll be too heavy @ 3150#" arguement just doesn't fly. You have to wonder if the CBR didn't select the SIR over the weight, as a way to validate the SIR concept.

I don't really see SIRs being consistent w/ IT philosophy. Do they fit in GT? Probably. But there you have a National class, that encourages factory support and involvement. Not to mention that you're dealing w/ highly developed, purpose-built race cars. That's not to say that IT cars aren't race cars, but you can't compare the two. Sure, a Miata and a 911 are both sports cars, but they're hardly in the same league.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 23 2006, 06:51 AM
Jake,

I never said it was the goal, and I certainly didn't mean to imply it. What I said, was that it was a potential result of the SIR rule. We've discussed SIRs on this board, and several comments were made about guys w/ less than full-tilt BMW programs not having to spend the huge time/dollars to be able to stay w/ the folks that did have the full-tilt cars.

Here's a quote from Joe:
If that's really the case, now you've got a car that doesn't have to be developed to 10/10ths, that's going to run at the front. As I said, seems like the BMW guys got a gimme.

With the Supra @ 3380#, w/ only 11 more stock hp, and only slightly bigger brakes (299/290 vw 287/280), using the "it'll be too heavy @ 3150#" arguement just doesn't fly. You have to wonder if the CBR didn't select the SIR over the weight, as a way to validate the SIR concept.

I don't really see SIRs being consistent w/ IT philosophy. Do they fit in GT? Probably. But there you have a National class, that encourages factory support and involvement. Not to mention that you're dealing w/ highly developed, purpose-built race cars. That's not to say that IT cars aren't race cars, but you can't compare the two. Sure, a Miata and a 911 are both sports cars, but they're hardly in the same league.

[snapback]71667[/snapback]

Bil, it's funny any time I post something I have this voice in the back of my head saying "how will bill misuse my words today"

Class of the field would still require a fully developed and fully driven car to be at the pointy end of the grid. It should require no less than that to win. Forget the SIR. If the MAF was 27MM they would have to develop their car to the max to get the same result. I understand your hesitation but this is the best technoloy going to make these kinds of changes. My honest feeling is that SIR's will end up in all classes and they should. You could then use SIR to limit HP and small amounts of weight to control torque advantages. Again I am not saying IT should get continuous adjustments

BTW, I have not even seen a supra racing to this day. Doesn't mean there isn't one just I have not seen it. I believe that 2.5 liter BMW VS 3.0 liter toyota maybe where the weight difference comes from. I am positive that the Toyota was way more restricted from the factory and the IT mods would show a serious power increase. That being said I also think with an SIR and 2900 lbs you may actually see several of them built cause the cars are out there and they are fairly cheap these days.

[Bill Miller]

Joe,

I'm certainly not trying to 'misuse' [sic] your words. I simply quoted what you said. And if the hp is capped by the SIR, how can you say that the car will need to be 'fully developed'? If the target cutoff point for the SIR is 220 chp (I think that's what Andy or Jake said), and the potential for the motor is 235-240 chp, w/ all the max tweaks, why would you need to spend the money and time, to get those 15-20 hp out of the motor, if they're never going to get used? Is it because the torque curve will keep increasing, even though the hp flattens out? I admit that I don't know a whole lot about SIR technology, but I didn't think that was the case.

I think the reason that you don't see any 3rd gen. Supras out there, is because they're saddled w/ a 3380# spec weight. Is there more to be gotten from a 7M-GE in IT prep, than the 2.5 I-6 from the E36? I don't know. Maybe, but then again, maybe not. You're talking about 11:1 for the E36 mill compared to 9.7 for the Toyota. I don't know much about those cars, other than the fact that the turbo versions are REALLY popular w/ the drag crowd and the tuner crowd. I do think it's safe to say that the Toyota hasn't had the factory support, development, and racing heritage that the I-6 BMW mill has.

I'd be curious as to just how much hp the Toyota would have to make, to get a spec. weight of 3380#. If you use 13 lb/hp (I backed that out of the 220hp target for the E36, at 2850#), you get something in the neighborhood of 260 chp. That's a 30% jump over stock, w/ an IT tune. Certainly not out of the question.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let's put this to bed:

What items have gone summarily dissmissed and are unanswered? Number them and we will address them.

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 23 2006, 07:35 AM
Is it because the torque curve will keep increasing, even though the hp flattens out?

Bingo! and torque is what wins races. I believe that it will still take a fully developed package to win races. Right now it does not. Right now a marginally driven fully prepped car can drive around a fully driven fully prepped 240z,rx7,e30 package. Again I don't want to see the E36 moved to mid pack by this change. I just want to see the best prepped and driven car have to at least work for it.

I'd be curious as to just how much hp the Toyota would have to make, to get a spec. weight of 3380#. If you use 13 lb/hp (I backed that out of the 220hp target for the E36, at 2850#), you get something in the neighborhood of 260 chp. That's a 30% jump over stock, w/ an IT tune. Certainly not out of the question.

[snapback]71678[/snapback]

Bill having worked on a bunch of different Toyota projects over the years I would say yes to 28 to 30% with all IT mods in place. I believe the car is a pig weight wise and should be looked at for a reduction and have an SIR speced for it. You may end up seeing cars built.

[JeffYoung]

Hmmm...so, the SIR doesn't affect torque (I've seen the 2.5's torque curve and it is better than my 3.5 V80, it only restricts top end horsepower. This means that all of the mid-level prepped BMWs will not be affected by this, only those at the "top."

Again, all due respect to Jake, Andy, and everyone. You guys did a GREAT job on this. ITA looks fantastic. S looks great with the Z cars and the more importantly the 944 fixed. But the SIR, I don't get. Doesn't seem (and I no engineer so open to all further discussion on this so I can learn) that it solves one of the two big problems with the 325:

1. When developed to the max, the 325 is too fast (SIR fixes this).

2. Average 325s can run up front right now (SIR doesn't fix this).

Weight seems to me to be the solution to both problems, and clearly more in line with ITS philosophy. I wonder if there is any ability to get the CRB to reconsider?

The silence in the BMW forum is deafening. I do fear that most guys are just going to pack it up and give up ITS with the SIR.

We'll see I suppose.

That 944 sure looks good at 2500 lbs though......George, you must be bustin' a nut!

[erlrich]

FWIW, I think the ITAC did an great job . From what I've come to understand about the SCCA's bureaucracy I think it was a major cuop just to get these adjustments implemented. Besides, now I don't have to worry so much about my driver loosing those extra 30 lbs he's been carrying around

Joe's comments did get me to thinking though (always dangerous); while I understand the rationale for not wanting to expend the time and effort reviewing cars for which there is limited data and/or are not currently being raced, I wonder if there aren't more than a few models out there (e.g. the ITS Supra) that might be racing if they were more competetively classed? Would the ITAC be willing to review other models on request, if for instance the requestor were to provide enough data to make an informed decision?

Just a thought.

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 23 2006, 02:49 PM
Let's put this to bed:

What items have gone summarily dissmissed and are unanswered? Number them and we will address them.

AB

[snapback]71680[/snapback]

try starting with post #105

[Bill Miller]

2. Average 325s can run up front right now (SIR doesn't fix this).

I agree Jeff.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Jan 23 2006, 08:54 AM
Hmmm...so, the SIR doesn't affect torque (I've seen the 2.5's torque curve and it is better than my 3.5 V80, it only restricts top end horsepower. This means that all of the mid-level prepped BMWs will not be affected by this, only those at the "top."

Again, all due respect to Jake, Andy, and everyone. You guys did a GREAT job on this. ITA looks fantastic. S looks great with the Z cars and the more importantly the 944 fixed. But the SIR, I don't get. Doesn't seem (and I no engineer so open to all further discussion on this so I can learn) that it solves one of the two big problems with the 325:

1. When developed to the max, the 325 is too fast (SIR fixes this).

2. Average 325s can run up front right now (SIR doesn't fix this).

Weight seems to me to be the solution to both problems, and clearly more in line with ITS philosophy. I wonder if there is any ability to get the CRB to reconsider?

The silence in the BMW forum is deafening. I do fear that most guys are just going to pack it up and give up ITS with the SIR.

We'll see I suppose.

That 944 sure looks good at 2500 lbs though......George, you must be bustin' a nut!

[snapback]71693[/snapback]

Jeff, Think about it for a minute. Torque is what moves weight but HP is what carries it. Getting moving is much harder than keeping it rolling. The BMW is heavy alredy for the class. Where it really shines is once it has that weight rolling it has more than enough HP to carry it and roll away with it. I have run against E36's and I can tell you we can pull up out of the corner everybit as good in a Z car. WHat happens when you hit 3rd gear is the rolling weight becomes nothing for that car to pull and they just flat out HP us down the straights. You can say all day long that limiting HP is not in the philosophy of the class but 3500lb sports cars are not really in the spirit of roadracing. By my numbers the E36 would have to weigh about 3400lbs to equal the straightline issue the SIR will solve. Difference is the car will still turn and brake. Your Z has been given a gift also now get to work and take advantage.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 23 2006, 11:12 AM
try starting with post #105

[snapback]71701[/snapback]

Read post # 95.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Jan 23 2006, 03:54 PM
That 944 sure looks good at 2500 lbs though......George, you must be bustin' a nut!

[snapback]71693[/snapback]

It's actually 2575lbs... And George is still bitter... He thought the car should have been moved to ITA...

[buldogge]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 23 2006, 04:21 PM
Read post # 95.

[snapback]71708[/snapback]

With all due respect Andy... You stated the following in #95: "The BMW's can make too much HP in legal IT prep for a 2850lb minimum weight. Simple as that. Limit it to about 220hp (crank) and you 'fit' into ITS."


I think most of us would like to know an actual RWHP #...not "about 220hp crank" (and having said that...what drivetrain loss deviation are you using to determine the output?)...but...The E36 BMW 325 SHALL ONLY BE ALLOWED to make 'X' RWHP to fit into this class...period.

Thanx...