It's here...

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 20 2006, 05:47 PM


.......
ps: Andy, Darin & George, sorry for the $hit I gave you over the past year (?) about the potential reclassing the 1st gen RX-7 to ITB. In my mind ya did the correct thing. Adding 220# & 6 inch rims made zero safety sense to me.

[snapback]71463[/snapback]

What about me???



David, the RX-7 could have worked in B, but there were issues...adding the weight would suck, of course, but we never determined an actual amount.
The cage issue was a killer, and everyone always wanted to make it work in A, if at all possible.

That said, it's still no overdog in A. At many tracks, it will still be a "tweener" even in the best hands. But at other tracks, it could be fun.

ITA will be great. The Integra is gaining weight, but not many...if any, ever made min weight anyway, so I am not sure if there will be a huge effect on them. So, depending on tracks, the contenders will be both Miatas, the Teg, the CRX, the 240SX, the NX2000, the Neons, and maybe even cars like the MR2 and the Fiero and the RX-7, and even others could be there up front... I doubt we'll see many Corvairs, though! Darn!

On the E36, (Jeff, mostly), we did discuss the possible alternatives to the restrictor, and I think that your worry about the whole group leaving due to the SIR is, hopefully, wrong. Process weight for that car is big, IF you choose middle of the road HP numbers. Even heavier if you believe the upper numbers. It seems that some are able to get big numbers from that engine or......

So, adding over 200 pounds..WELL over...... would have really added up . Remember, they run the same 7" wide wheels, and at some point, tire response and wear goes non linear. So the weight ACTS like more. So we gave alternatives to the CRB.

While the SIR will cost money to implement, it's not a lot in the grand scheme of things, and in the end it should be a net savings in consumables like tires and brakes, etc.

Personally, I think that the E36 guys should be OVERJOYED....the SIR will cancel any overdogs HP wise, whether due to cams or whatever, and the have nots won't feel a thing. The haves should be clipped enough to fit the process.

Remember, the top dogs in the class say they are held up by the E36 in the corners and the braking areas....but they can't get to them on the straights. Hopefully, the SIR will result in fairer fights, AND save money in the long run.

I think the concept of IT...the philosophy...includes, where possible and appropriate, measures to help keep racing affordable..or at least to help avoid throwing money away. I think this is in line with that. Keep in mind that the car is stock at 189hp, but is really underrated...it is an anomoly, and if there were a class above, consideration would have been given to moving it and letting it really fly.

We'll see.

[Ron Earp]

I think the changes are great, but I still feel we sort of changed class philosophy with the SIR. Weight would have been fine for the BMWs. And the “too much weight” doesn’t hold a lot of water really. There are other cars in S with higher weights and some with much poorer brakes than a BMW.

E46 3 Series at 3000lbs
Ford Mustang V6 at 3100lbs
Prelude SH at 2905lbs
Supra at 3380lbs!!!!

I suppose we wait and see what happens. I can see some logic in what has been written with the SIR affecting everyone and leveling the field somewhat. But the car should have weighed more from the beginning. If it was too heavy at that weight and ate brakes, wore tires out, and generally was a poor race car then well, well, well – the documents say competitiveness is not guaranteed.

Maybe we can put it in ITU at a correct weight………

Ron

[Joe Harlan]

Nice job guys! I only wish I could have been a part of this positive move.

I look forward the results of the SIR as I am a strong believer in the technology. Once it is proven I hope to see other classifications added based on the technology in the future.

[ddewhurst]

for Jake.......


***What about me??? ***

Jake, Im sorry I don't watch the score card to keep informed of whose who in the politcal arena. Just when did you join the politics ? I mean, when did you become accecpted to the ITAC ? Mid year, I notice a slightly different posts presentation. Congrats my friend. The 1st gen may not be at the top but IMHJ it's in the class where it belongs.

***I doubt we'll see many Corvairs, though! Darn!***

By coincidence I talked with Charlie Clark this p.m. & we talked about his & John Brakke's corvairs. Charlie still has his.

[ddewhurst]

Group: Members
Posts: 1,683
Joined: 9-February 01
From: Wauwatosa, WI, USA
Member No.: 111

View Vehicles

Warn: (0%) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

<<<<<<<< What dose "Warn: (0%)" mean above below View Vehicles ?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 20 2006, 08:21 PM
Group: Members
Posts: 1,683
Joined: 9-February 01
From: Wauwatosa, WI, USA
Member No.: 111

View Vehicles

Warn: (0%) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

<<<<<<<< What dose "Warn: (0%)" mean above below View Vehicles ?

[snapback]71479[/snapback]

I am betting that it is a measure put in place by the webmaster to let you know how close you are to being bounced off the board. Seemingly 5 strikes and you are out if the green lights mean anything.

I think we can only see our own warning level.
AB

[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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t done that work already, then your cars weren&#39;t fully prepared. that ain&#39;t the bmw&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t be any forced cost to it. this is now the second year in a row of a significant mandated cost before bmw&#39;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&#39;t done that work already, then your cars weren&#39;t fully prepared. that ain&#39;t the bmw&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t be any forced cost to it. this is now the second year in a row of a significant mandated cost before bmw&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t work, look at the early limited-prep Prod rules. They made reference to IT head prep. Well, if you look at the &#39;06 PCS, I&#39;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&#39;t done that work already, then your cars weren&#39;t fully prepared. that ain&#39;t the bmw&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t be any forced cost to it. this is now the second year in a row of a significant mandated cost before bmw&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s it&#39;s another big excuse for not wanting change. I can see some of the issues with the GT cars but we don&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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!!")

[jhooten]

The ITAC drops me to ITA and removes 140 pounds but the CRB&#39;s tells me my "motor" is too big for production.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by jhooten@Jan 20 2006, 10:16 PM
The ITAC drops me to ITA and removes 140 pounds but the CRB&#39;s tells me my "motor" is too big for production.

[snapback]71489[/snapback]

I don&#39;t think you got dropped to ITA...

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 20 2006, 08:28 PM
I don&#39;t think you got dropped to ITA...

AB

[snapback]71490[/snapback]

I hate it when that happens....

[jhooten]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 21 2006, 03:28 AM
I don&#39;t think you got dropped to ITA...

AB

[snapback]71490[/snapback]

You are correct, it was a bad cut and paste job in an e-mail I got. Either that or he did it on purpose to jerk my chain. Should have confirmed the info first.

[ddewhurst]

Andy, thanks for the info.

There are 5 blue rectangles to the right side of this message. Dont remember the blue rectangles being additive. I think the stuff showed up today all at once. <_< No green light.

I sent a message to the webmaster asking for information.

Warn: (0%) - - - - -

[xr4racer]

I think the question "has anyone tested the BMW SIR on the track yet?" deserves an answer. Disregard his other comment and please answer the question, I can take a wild guess at the answer. For people that are looking for a place to read a little about SIR&#39;s look at www.raetech.com.
I also have not seen any comments on how the ITS cars that lost all of the weight by these new rules will actually do it unless they hire Nicole Ritchie to drive for them or use remote controls.
Joe Harlan probably has built ITS Datsuns, how much can they legally get down to? I have a couple of friends that laughed when I told them the new weights of the 280z and 280zx that they run, and they said the ZX could probably lose 85 lbs and the 280z around 25 lbs.