SIR TEST RESULTS

[MMiskoe]

Back to the testing process.

Testing this motor w/ different levels of prep and different types/sizes of restrictor seems like a no brainer.

So why is there any time wasted on a chassi dyno or even moreso, why any time wasted arguing about the numbers measured there. Results are only as good as the test done.

Having just jumped into reading this, I can't believe this approach hasn't been explored.

4 motors w/ different levels of build, all get run w/ the flat plate & the SIR. From what I read on the SIR it will top out the performance of the motor regardless of what else is done to it internally (curious to see this). Start at the bottom see what you get, then move up & see how it affects performance.


Motor 1 - stock, minimal if any changes - run it w/ the SIR and the flat plate
Motor 2 - moderate IT change - run it w/ the SIR and the flat plate, compare differences
Motor 3 - fullblown IT motor
Motor 4 - bump compression & better cams (to show the envelope above what can be done legally)

Then while you're at it, better get a decent, or full blown 13B motor on the stand. Probably ought to get a Datsun L28 (L28 or L24 in the 240z?) motor there too.

The idea that SCCA hasn't already done this w/ other cars somewhere between WC and TransAm would suprise me. Should be some previously done tests that can be repeated on the BWM motor.

Meanwhile there are three choices:

Send the E36 to ITE
Raise the Weight
Let them drive off into the winner circle and remember we're racing for bowling trophies.

[gpeluso]

Thank You for saying this about testing. AB must think we just don't understand how things get done. Even if the SIR can get it done, it is an insult to think rule makes can't spend money to test a stinking theory,but tell a part of membership as a whole to spend $50,000 on apiece of equipment(That $$ is arrived at by 100 BMW drivers spending about $500 on a SIR and related items)

Back to the testing process.

Testing this motor w/ different levels of prep and different types/sizes of restrictor seems like a no brainer.

So why is there any time wasted on a chassi dyno or even moreso, why any time wasted arguing about the numbers measured there. Results are only as good as the test done.

Having just jumped into reading this, I can't believe this approach hasn't been explored.

4 motors w/ different levels of build, all get run w/ the flat plate & the SIR. From what I read on the SIR it will top out the performance of the motor regardless of what else is done to it internally (curious to see this). Start at the bottom see what you get, then move up & see how it affects performance.
Motor 1 - stock, minimal if any changes - run it w/ the SIR and the flat plate
Motor 2 - moderate IT change - run it w/ the SIR and the flat plate, compare differences
Motor 3 - fullblown IT motor
Motor 4 - bump compression & better cams (to show the envelope above what can be done legally)

Then while you're at it, better get a decent, or full blown 13B motor on the stand. Probably ought to get a Datsun L28 (L28 or L24 in the 240z?) motor there too.

The idea that SCCA hasn't already done this w/ other cars somewhere between WC and TransAm would suprise me. Should be some previously done tests that can be repeated on the BWM motor.

Meanwhile there are three choices:

Send the E36 to ITE
Raise the Weight
Let them drive off into the winner circle and remember we're racing for bowling trophies.
[/b]

[zracre]

Let them drive off into the winner circle and remember we're racing for bowling trophies.
[/b]

[its66]

AB, the RX7 is lighter, easier on tyres, has as good of brakes as my BMW, handles slightly better and my BMW has slightly more torque (where the hell you got 180 ft lbs. of torque I'm look at my dyno sheet?) 180 is a false figure.
<deleted>.
dj
[/b]

The 180 HP number came from fellow e36 drivers. It is posted publicly right here.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...indpost&p=60662

scroll down to post 292.

50 lb-ft is 38+% more than 130-which is the best of the best RX7 torque. Most are in the 125 range. I don&#39;t think "slightly more" is the correct term.

[Bill Miller]

A-freakin&#39;-men.

Kirk (who still thinks this is going to go down as a decision that we regret mightily)
[/b]

Put another vote in that column! I simply can&#39;t believe that all this time, money, and effort is being spent on this.

They are not going to make any decision that could endanger the competiveness of the E36. [/b]

That statement gave me the single biggest icky feeling of anything I read here. Currently, the E36 does not fit the process that has been applied to the rest of IT. The ITCS clearly states that there&#39;s no guarantee of competitiveness. Now we hear statements about how the CRB won&#39;t do anything that might endanger the competitiveness of a car that doesn&#39;t fit the process.

The E36 should have gotten the 300# of lead, and that should have been the end of the story. To all those folks that say that they wouldn&#39;t race w/ the SCCA w/ their E36 @ 3150#, my comment is, don&#39;t let the door hit you on the way out. You think that you should get special treatment that others don&#39;t get. While I agree that it sucks to have spent money on things that you have to take off the car, guess what, that&#39;s part of racing. People have had things legislated away in the past, and more than likely, it will happen again in the future. Racing costs money, you don&#39;t want to spend it, OSB.

Jake, Andy, Darin, and any other members of the ITAC, this SIR thing is a HUGE mistake, on a lot of different levels. Go back to the CRB and implore them to go w/ the lead. This special treatment for the E36 cars is really BS. Someone please give me an example of another IT car that has had it&#39;s specs set based on dyno testing? Not only is this a can of worms, but it&#39;s one that&#39;s burried in the ground, that you&#39;re only starting to see the top of. Nobody has any idea of how big it is.

Not trying to but I don&#39;t see how anyone can look someone in the eye, and honestly tell them that the Supra has to run @ 3380#, because that&#39;s where the process puts it, but that an E36 gets to run @ 2850#, w/ an SIR, and say that both cars got treated the same.

This whole thing has become such a case of the tail wagging the dog, it&#39;s not funny. And I could really care less what some people would or wouldn&#39;t touch w/ their 1" pole.

[Ron Earp]

Not trying to but I don&#39;t see how anyone can look someone in the eye, and honestly tell them that the Supra has to run @ 3380#, because that&#39;s where the process puts it, but that an E36 gets to run @ 2850#, w/ an SIR, and say that both cars got treated the same.
[/b]

Precisely correct Bill. And your comments with the lead are spot on. Why does this car deserve special treatment? And really, "unracable" with 300lbs of extra lead, it&#39;ll wear everything out? I bet I could add 300lbs to my SM and it&#39;d "race" okay. It wouldn&#39;t win, but it&#39;d race. But, as the GCR says, no guarentee of competitiveness.

[dj10]

The 180 HP number came from fellow e36 drivers. It is posted publicly right here.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...indpost&p=60662

scroll down to post 292.

50 lb-ft is 38+% more than 130-which is the best of the best RX7 torque. Most are in the 125 range. I don&#39;t think "slightly more" is the correct term.
[/b]

Thank you for this info. 1st I&#39;ve seen this. Can you confirm that this was on a Dynojet please?

Weight issue, do you think its ok to stick 300# in a small area like the foot well of a car?

I believe the SCCA is going through this process because they want to do the RIGHT thing and no just the EASIEST!
dj

[its66]

I don&#39;t know what type of dyno was used. Perhaps Darin has that info somewhere. Or, if Bruce happens back in here, he might be able to share that info.

Regarding the 300#, do you mean from a safety standpoint? If so, I&#39;m quite certain that I could mount 300# of weight in a manner that would be safe.

[zracre]

IMHO, of course, I think we should write SCCA a letter requesting the weight at 3150# and be done with it and stop wasting energy arguing about it. We are all membersand we ALL own this club. It does not matter if you run an ITC car or a BMW...it affects all of us. The SIR was put there with good intentions but implemented too quickly with not enough research on the application. Maybe a year or 5 down the road it will be standard operating procedure, but dont make IT the proving grounds (racers with the smallest budgets/entry level racing). I applaud the SCCA for trying to equalize the fields, and even though I got weight added (after the initial swelling went down ) I thinks they did a good job of trying to balance the IT fields...As I said before, a 325is does fine on track with a passenger...it will do fine with 300# of lead added in creative additional bracing of cage and a couple of lead plates. Again, JMHO...

[Fastfred92]

But, as the GCR says, no guarentee of competitiveness.
[/b]

Ron with all due respect that is BS, while I agree that the GCR makes no promise, it should not be used to make a otherwise competitive car useless just to favor another car ( RX7 )... what is next??? we neuter the next inline ( RX7, 240 etc. ) until your TR8 or my VR6 become competitive ????????

[Bill Miller]

Ron with all due respect that is BS, while I agree that the GCR makes no promise, it should not be used to make a otherwise competitive car useless just to favor another car ( RX7 )... what is next??? we neuter the next inline ( RX7, 240 etc. ) until your TR8 or my VR6 become competitive ????????
[/b]

Fred,

Until you can document that anyone involved w/ this process is expressly trying to make the E36 "useless" [SIC] so as to favor the RX7, kindly put a sock in it. Your comments are an insult to a group of people that have tried very hard (and done a hell of a job, I might add) to make IT a better place for EVERYBODY. I could just as easily claim that the E36 got an SIR instead of 300# of lead, because people are trying to protect it. It&#39;s gotten special treatment that no other car in IT has gotten.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ron with all due respect that is BS, while I agree that the GCR makes no promise, it should not be used to make a otherwise competitive car useless just to favor another car ( RX7 )... what is next??? we neuter the next inline ( RX7, 240 etc. ) until your TR8 or my VR6 become competitive ???????? [/b]

FF,

With all due respect to you, you have COMPLETELY missed the point of the restructure. It isn&#39;t about bringing fast cars to the middle or slow cars to the front - or whatever anyone wants to call it.

We have a process to class new cars and cars moving up or down. When we took that process and applied it to cars across all the classes, it was apperant that there were some cars that were very heavy and very light. So in order to move forward in a unified fashion, we ran everyone through. Not so coincidentally, the cars that stuck out on the top end were &#39;the cars to have&#39;. And the cars that stuck out on the bottom (too heavy) were total dogs.

When the process is applied universally across the board, each class has never looked better. The system will never be perfect - but it is repeatable and defendable - something that is light years away from where we were even 3 years ago.

Someone else

applaud(ed) the SCCA for trying to equalize the fields[/b]

...this is NOT the case. It was a side benefit - a validation if you will - of the process being applied to everyone. On track results were not used - and can&#39;t be. It&#39;s about the process.

I respect the opinions against the SIR in terms of philosophy and timing.

AB

[robits325is]

On track results were not used - and can&#39;t be. It&#39;s about the process.

AB
[/b]

Please explain how the &#39;process&#39; doesn&#39;t/can&#39;t/won&#39;t use actual race results to justify adjustments when you are trying to use dyno results to validate an overdog?

Using dyno results to make a specific car model fit a &#39;process&#39; does not seem logical. A dyno should be used for tuning - not for competitive adjustments - too much inconsistency.

Some cars make better race cars than others. All IT cars are not prepped to the same level and only a small percentage are 100% builds.

The SIR rule was implemented WAY too fast without testing or validation other than in theory.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Please explain how the &#39;process&#39; doesn&#39;t/can&#39;t/won&#39;t use actual race results to justify adjustments when you are trying to use dyno results to validate an overdog?

Using dyno results to make a specific car model fit a &#39;process&#39; does not seem logical. A dyno should be used for tuning - not for competitive adjustments - too much inconsistency.

Some cars make better race cars than others. All IT cars are not prepped to the same level and only a small percentage are 100% builds.

The SIR rule was implemented WAY too fast without testing or validation other than in theory. [/b]

I&#39;ll answer your question with a question:

How are you supposed to classifiy a car that has never turned a wheel on the track? How do you think your E46 323&#39;s got to 3000lbs having never been built for IT?

The &#39;process&#39; is NOT about adjustments. It&#39;s about SETTING a weight. This was a one-time change where we "set" the weight of every car in IT using the process that has been in place for 2 years now. Read my post above again.

Some cars DO make better race cars than others, and the cream may still rise to the top - and SO BE IT. This process has NOTHING to do with prep level, on-track performance or anything like that. It has to do with the assumption that people will prepare to the limit of the rules. I have no sympathy for a guy with a stock motor and header who gets beat by another guy who has his car maxed out. If you don&#39;t have the best equipment, how do you expect to win - IN ANYTHING? You may, but that is based on talent, not equipment...and when the talent catches up to you, you&#39;re done.

AB

[its66]

<delete this>

[dj10]

Ron with all due respect that is BS, while I agree that the GCR makes no promise, it should not be used to make a otherwise competitive car useless just to favor another car ( RX7 )... what is next??? we neuter the next inline ( RX7, 240 etc. ) until your TR8 or my VR6 become competitive ????????
[/b]

Fred,
Over the years I&#39;ve seen SCCA do exactly that (neuter car lines) in National racing!
So why not destroy the BMW in ITS with excessive weight or untested technology?
No one has answered my question, as usual. What dyno was used in Bruce Shafers test?
dj

[Bill Miller]

On track results were not used - and can&#39;t be. It&#39;s about the process.


AB
[/b]

I&#39;m sorry Andy, if that&#39;s the case, you guys threw the PCA rule right out the window.


Taken from 17.1.4.C of the &#39;06 GCR

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.[/b]

I don&#39;t know how you read that, but the way I read it, is that the ONLY way you can implement a restrictor, is after a review of results. There&#39;s nothing at all in the preceeding paragraph (which deals w/ the initial classification process) that speaks to using an inlet restrictor. Here&#39;s the first part of that paragraph.

During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess
vehicle performance factors such as—but not limited to—manufacturer’s
published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower,
and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and
aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable
weight shall be established.[/b]

All it says is that a minimum weight shall be established. Says nothing about a restrictor. So, either all the cars were treated like they were new classifications, and run through the process w/o any consideration given to results, or it was a post-classification adjustment, at which point you must consider results, if you&#39;re going to implement a restrictor.

I&#39;m not trying to pick a fight (or pick the corn out of the shit), but that&#39;s what the rule says.

[its66]

Fred,
Over the years I&#39;ve seen SCCA do exactly that (neuter car lines) in National racing!
So why not destroy the BMW in ITS with excessive weight or untested technology?
No one has answered my question, as usual. What dyno was used in Bruce Shafers test?
dj
[/b]

such negativity???. The west coast is three hours behind. It&#39;s barely been three hours. Darin probably hasn&#39;t even seen this yet. Bruce rarely checks out IT.COM anymore.

[specialtyautomo]

I have read the posts and I say give the e36 300lbs and remote reservoir shocks bahahahahahahaaa.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I&#39;m sorry Andy, if that&#39;s the case, you guys threw the PCA rule right out the window.


Taken from 17.1.4.C of the &#39;06 GCR


I don&#39;t know how you read that, but the way I read it, is that the ONLY way you can implement a restrictor, is after a review of results. There&#39;s nothing at all in the preceeding paragraph (which deals w/ the initial classification process) that speaks to using an inlet restrictor. Here&#39;s the first part of that paragraph.



All it says is that a minimum weight shall be established. Says nothing about a restrictor. So, either all the cars were treated like they were new classifications, and run through the process w/o any consideration given to results, or it was a post-classification adjustment, at which point you must consider results, if you&#39;re going to implement a restrictor.

I&#39;m not trying to pick a fight (or pick the corn out of the shit), but that&#39;s what the rule says.
[/b]

Bill,

I am talking about the restructuring, not the SIR. I have agreed that I understand the issues with the philosophy and timing. The CRB decided that the BMW was an extreme situation. Officially, it was not part of our proposal, it was a seperate line item. We have already seen that one guy is &#39;gone&#39; at 3150 and we have received a letter from a soon to be "ex-SCCA" member because of the SIR...

In this case, nobody will be happy because the pastures have been so green for so long.

AB