It's here...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 26 2006, 12:29 PM
Assume that it has been considered fully. If you think that full consideration would have resulted in a different result - give supporting reasons and evidence, write the letter.

[snapback]72321[/snapback]

Dang - I hate it when someone writes my own thoughts better than me!



AB

[Bill Miller]

BTW, here's the stock specs on an E36 325 M50 engine

is rated at 189 hp @ 5900rpm and 181 lb-ft of torque at 4700.

Looks damn close to me, like those cars would be w/in a 100 or so lbs of each other.

/edit/

Here are some engine specs for this model... Read them, and you'll understand that this classification isn't more than 50lbs off of where it needs to be for IT...

I don't know Darin, I used the 2850#/220hp number from the E36, and got 12.95. Multiply that by the potential 250 hp and you get more like 3240. The 'adders' are probably close to what they are for the E36, so I'm guessing that that 12.95 number is pretty good. So, that's a bit more than 50# off where it should be.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Eagle7@Jan 26 2006, 01:49 PM
Um... publish the list?

[snapback]72331[/snapback]

I wouldn't disagree, but I have enough bruises to not make such an obvious request.

Unfortunately such a broad project of this probably doesn't have three very clearly defined buckets where all contents of the buckets had the exact same level of consideration A - full with modification to classing B - full with no modification of classing C - none at all with no modification of classing.

Between B & C buckets there is likely a spread out spectrum of cars with very few that would cleanly fall in the B or C bucket with absolute certainty. There could be 15 appropriate buckets between B & C. Realistically it just wouldn't be feasible to provide such a list without additional discord - it is easier both for the ITAC and I feel the participants to assume it was fully considered as Andy said and then voice disagreement with the result of the process through a letter.

Also while I think these public discussions are helpful and benefit those participating in them - I highly suspect for those who want real concerted consideration of their grievances a letter to the CRB will receive the most attention. I hope the most passionate would take it there unless they are just venting.

[e36its]

Originally posted by Eagle7@Jan 26 2006, 01:49 PM
Um... publish the list?

Is this being considered? I appreciate all the ITAC / CRB input I've been able to glean off various discussions of this SIR change, but so far it's involved collecting dropped snippets of information from various places and trying to reverse engineer a formula from that. Weight target information mentioned here, the idea of adders mentioned there, achievable power with legal IT mods mentioned somewhere else.

Would it be a bad idea to release a list with all the formula inputs to the public? It would introduce a level of transparency to the process that might help folks understand the moves that are being made.

tom philip
(yes, I drive one of those: E36 325is)

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 26 2006, 12:50 PM
You've got one of your associates that feels that tire response goes non-linear when you've got cars that heavy, on 7" wide rims. If that's a valid reason for not giving the E36 lead, then other, similar cars, should get similar consideration.

That'd be me. Yup. I get iffy on cars weighing that much on the 7"rims, and if I was on the ITAC 10 years ago, when the Supra came up, I would have said the same thing. Of course, there were no SIRs back then....so my recommendation might have been, "Sorry, too much HP). A good candidate for lighter weight and ITR though.

When you make statements like you just did, in light of the fact that the E36 got an SIR instead of lead, it makes it look like the E36 folks got smiled on again, w/ a wink and a nod

.

HAR har har! THATS rich! trust me, the E36 guys are NOT thinking that! With ALL the changes, the ONLY guys REALLY moaning and spitting fire, are the E36 guys, who, you think got a gift!

I think that fact is so strange, in and of itself.

If we get a letter from a guy and it's well documented, and has good supporting info, and it says "You guys missed the XYZ such and such" then we'll look at it and make a decision.

We have already gotten such a letter, and it was correct. (Although we had cought it already, it just didn't make the list)

That said, any letters should be reasonable, and well supported.

Like I said 10 pages ago, they should have just thrown 300# of lead at the BMW and been done with it.

[snapback]72332[/snapback]

LOL, I'm begining to think that might be fun.

[dj10]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 26 2006, 11:02 AM
DJ, I am not real PC most times so excuse me if this comes off wrong. You are not there yet even with out the Motec you have left something on the table. What rings are you runing? What headers are you using? who blueprinted to injector flow rates. Where are your cams running? What RPM are are you swithing the cam curve in the ECU? There are lots of questions I could ask but as I said I don't believe your package is fully built even short of the Motec. Comparing a fullly built RX7 engine to a partially built Bimmer engine does nothing to balance the class on maximum efforts. Also using RWHP numbers makes you happy but in reality every program out there short of NASA wrks with flywheel numbers. I have seen dyno sheets from a high mileage bimmer engine with a fresh IT prepped head make better power than your stating. Again nothing against your program but I don't think your comparing apples to apples.

[snapback]72287[/snapback]

I know what I know from one of the best engine builders in the country by reputation.
My cams are stock and the timing is stock and legal. That's where my cams are running. Where else would they be?

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 26 2006, 11:18 AM
The Huffmaster car qualified on top of Chet in Q1 at the ARRC, yes. Do you know the details? ...

With all due respect, Andy you do NOT need to get sucked into that argument because on-track performance is not part of the classification/specification process.

In fact, by letting ourselves get drawn into sounding like we are defending a decision based on qualifying times or race results, particularly from ONE event, we encourage people to engage in presenting the same kind of flawed "data" to support their positions.

We are collectively going to need to say WAY above that fray, if we are going to avoid this good thing turning into competition adjustments (bleah).

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Jan 26 2006, 02:28 PM
With all due respect, Andy you do NOT need to get sucked into that argument because on-track performance is not part of the classification/specification process.

In fact, by letting ourselves get drawn into sounding like we are defending a decision based on qualifying times or race results, particularly from ONE event, we encourage people to engage in presenting the same kind of flawed "data" to support their positions.

We are collectively going to need to say WAY above that fray, if we are going to avoid this good thing turning into competition adjustments (bleah).

K

[snapback]72360[/snapback]

Captain,

You are 100% correct. I just threw that out there to prove that on-track may or may not be what it seems.

Hopefully, we all know that this is about THE PROCESS and a level foundation from which to move forward. The cream may rise to the top in every class - and so be it. And this class isn't about guaranteeing competitivness, it's about a fresh start, using the current processes uniformally applied.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Jan 26 2006, 01:28 PM
With all due respect, Andy you do NOT need to get sucked into that argument because on-track performance is not part of the classification/specification process.

In fact, by letting ourselves get drawn into sounding like we are defending a decision based on qualifying times or race results, particularly from ONE event, we encourage people to engage in presenting the same kind of flawed "data" to support their positions.

We are collectively going to need to say WAY above that fray, if we are going to avoid this good thing turning into competition adjustments (bleah).

K

[snapback]72360[/snapback]

Yes Kirk, but it IS part of the PCA/weight adjustment/SIR process.

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 26 2006, 06:09 PM
Yes Kirk, but it IS part of the PCA/weight adjustment/SIR process.

[snapback]72393[/snapback]

I disagree Bill, I don't think it is part of the process, it is just part of the argueing about the process.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 26 2006, 12:07 PM
I know what I know from one of the best engine builders in the country by reputation.
My cams are stock and the timing is stock and legal. That's where my cams are running. Where else would they be?

[snapback]72356[/snapback]

DJ, you confirm what I suspected none of the legal work has been done thart would produce the HP numbers that are out there. In 03 I built a T2 350z for a guy I bought 24 injectors from nissan and sent them to my injector guy for matching flowing and making sets out of. That was a net gain of 8 hp. doesn't seam like alot but in the SS scale of thing its big. your leaving food on the table that others are not leaving.

[buldogge]

Joe... I think he was referring to the cams comment.

The cams are supposed to be at the stock position (legally)...using offset keys/etc. is only legal "to return cams to stock setting" or somesuch.

Are you advocating illegally advancing (or retarding?) cams?

It is also possible to modify the VANOS (again doesn't apply to me)...are you saying we should be doing this as well???

Seems odd...

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 26 2006, 11:52 PM
DJ, you confirm what I suspected none of the legal work has been done thart would produce the HP numbers that are out there. In 03 I built a T2 350z for a guy I bought 24 injectors from nissan and sent them to my injector guy for matching flowing and making sets out of. That was a net gain of 8 hp. doesn't seam like alot but in the SS scale of thing its big. your leaving food on the table that others are not leaving.

[snapback]72405[/snapback]

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by buldogge@Jan 26 2006, 05:07 PM
Joe... I think he was referring to the cams comment.

The cams are supposed to be at the stock position (legally)...using offset keys/etc. is only legal "to return cams to stock setting" or somesuch.

Are you advocating illegally advancing (or retarding?) cams?

It is also possible to modify the VANOS (again doesn't apply to me)...are you saying we should be doing this as well???

Seems odd...

[snapback]72407[/snapback]

I am all about being legal but lets face it if the CRB can't police stock ECU's do you think I am silly enough to believe that folks aren't altering cam timing through the ECU? ANd no I am not specing using offset keys to alter cam timing even though we know its happening. I am saying I have a stack of 240Z cams that are tagged they have all been across the cam doctor to be sure they are legal and to my spec. All others are thrown out. Maximizing th program is how others get to the front. Searching the core piles to find the lighest connecting rod and the best crank ect. is how you find that hard to get HP. But if your not doing it then somebody is beating you with it. Leaving food on the table.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by dickita15@Jan 26 2006, 04:41 PM
I disagree Bill, I don't think it is part of the process, it is just part of the argueing about the process.

[snapback]72397[/snapback]

I don't Dick, how do you read this? (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.

There's nothing in there about using SIRs when classing cars. The way I read that, you can ONLY saddle a car w/ a restrictor after reviewing on-track performance.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 26 2006, 10:32 PM
I don't Dick, how do you read this? (emphasis mine)
There's nothing in there about using SIRs when classing cars. The way I read that, you can ONLY saddle a car w/ a restrictor after reviewing on-track performance.

[snapback]72435[/snapback]

Are you talking about newly classed cars? Not existing cars, right?

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 26 2006, 11:32 PM
I don't Dick, how do you read this? (emphasis mine)
There's nothing in there about using SIRs when classing cars. The way I read that, you can ONLY saddle a car w/ a restrictor after reviewing on-track performance.

[snapback]72435[/snapback]

Bill, very good point. Maybe I am naïve but from what the ITAC members have said publicly I would like to think that the on track performance can trigger the revaluation of a car but not in the actual results of that review.

But again maybe I am naïve, and you make a great point.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by dickita15@Jan 27 2006, 06:06 AM
Bill, very good point. Maybe I am naïve but from what the ITAC members have said publicly I would like to think that the on track performance can trigger the revaluation of a car but not in the actual results of that review.

But again maybe I am naïve, and you make a great point.

[snapback]72457[/snapback]

That's just it Dick. I didn't write the rule, but it clearly states that the ONLY way that cars may be adjusted, once the 4-year 'post classification period has expired', either through a change in the spec weight or through the requirement of an intake restrictor, is after the review of the on-track performance.

And this class isn't about guaranteeing competitivness, it's about a fresh start, using the current processes uniformally applied.

And there's the problem w/ that Andy, the process wasn't uniformlly applied. You've got two cars, w/ very similar stock hp and torque numbers (E36 and gen. 3 Supra). One is very popular (E36), but is spec'd ~300# under where it should be, according to the process. The other is hardly ever seen on the track, and appears to be spec'd high, based on the target #/hp ratio used for the E36.

People have said that tire response goes non-linear at the weight the E36 should be at, per the process, yet the Supra is 200+# North of that. People have also said that they didn't want to make E36 guys add that much lead, or have to go find stock stuff to put back in. Others have said that because it has raced @2850#, it should stay there.

I'm sorry Andy, but when you have two very similar cars, and one gets to run 500# lighter, w/ a restrictor, which clearly gives it an edge in both tire and brake wear, not to mention overall handling, that the process has not been 'uniformally' applied.


/edit/ italics

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 27 2006, 08:20 AM

I'm sorry Andy, but when you have two very similar cars, and one gets to run 500# lighter, w/ a restrictor, which clearly gives it an edge in both tire and brake wear, not to mention overall handling, that the process has been 'uniformally' applied.

[snapback]72463[/snapback]

Bill,

I respect your fundamental standpoint. I can only point to the CRB's reasoning. The BMW guys think they are getting crusified, the non-BMW guys think the BMW guys got away with another one.

Weight. It's the new iPod. Everyone has to have it.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 27 2006, 07:43 AM
Bill,

I respect your fundamental standpoint. I can only point to the CRB's reasoning. The BMW guys think they are getting crusified, the non-BMW guys think the BMW guys got away with another one.

Weight. It's the new iPod. Everyone has to have it.

AB

[snapback]72466[/snapback]

Thanks Andy, that's all I can ask. And of course the BMW guys say they're getting screwed. They're just like the politicians here in NJ, they've got a good thing going, and they don't want anybody messing w/ it.

[turboICE]

No one is bad enough to deserve that comparison!