SIR TEST RESULTS

[dj10]

such negativity???. The west coast is three hours behind. It's barely been three hours. Darin probably hasn't even seen this yet. Bruce rarely checks out IT.COM anymore.
[/b]

Jim, the truth hurts sometimes........SinLoi
If you were in my shoes, what could you be positive about right now? Please give me something to be positive about. I'm open minded.
I've been in and out of the SCCA since the early 90's and in other forms of racing since mid 70's but only noticed this stuff for a year so I'm not use to this, other than seeing it in National T1 & T2.
dj

[Andy Bettencourt]

So why not destroy the BMW in ITS with excessive weight ...
dj
[/b]

Do you have any supporting info/data/facts/comparisons to support that 3100-3150 would be 'excessive' or is it pure speculation as the car has been living inside the 2850lb nirvana for years now? Something that the detractors of the process weight have yet to belly-up with.

AB

[Joe Harlan]

I'm sorry Andy, if that's the case, you guys threw the PCA rule right out the window.
Taken from 17.1.4.C of the '06 GCR
I don'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's nothing at all in the preceeding paragraph (which deals w/ the initial classification process) that speaks to using an inlet restrictor. Here'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're going to implement a restrictor.

I'm not trying to pick a fight (or pick the corn out of the s**t), but that's what the rule says.
[/b]

Bill one thing I have seen as of late is that if the CRB feels they need to change a rule to support a change then they do it..( I am OK with this) If the rules need to be changed to allow restrictors to be part of the classification then i hope they just get it done. And even though I am just as bad and tryign to be better lets save the bad words for the prod site....lol

[dj10]

Do you have any supporting info/data/facts/comparisons to support that 3100-3150 would be 'excessive' or is it pure speculation as the car has been living inside the 2850lb nirvana for years now?
AB
[/b]

AB,
I have no supporting evidence to support my statement. But do you any any that it may be the right amount? I believe in a common sense approach to things. Just like I warned you about SIRS to be applied in THEORY. To quote Marshall Lytle, "we don't race in theory". [i][u]I'm sure you are not getting the results that you hoped for that is why the hush hush and further testing is needed. Getting back to the weight, even the SCCA PRO understands that if you penalize a car you do it in smaller increments. To hit us all at once then make us put all this weight in 3 or 4 sq. ft. to me is not good common sense. If you want to hit us 1st with a 100# then see if what does, then add weight as required, to me this is a common sense approach. I already told you that I will go along with the SIR also, I beleive that if the SCCA will implement this tested (as well as can be expected) I should & will give them the benefit of the doubt. I truely don't want to stop SCCA racing, i know many very good people who race with me in other makes and other classes. I am trying to be as reasonable as I can. We (BMW owners) just want to be dealt with in good faith. Would you wanted to be treated any differently?
dj

[its66]

Jim, the truth hurts sometimes........SinLoi
If you were in my shoes, what could you be positive about right now? Please give me something to be positive about. I'm open minded.
I've been in and out of the SCCA since the early 90's and in other forms of racing since mid 70's but only noticed this stuff for a year so I'm not use to this, other than seeing it in National T1 & T2.
dj
[/b]

DJ,
I wouldn't expect you, or any other competitor to be happy about any adjustment that will slow down their race car. I also wouldn't expect you to be happy about having basically one month or so to do it in-as was the initial change. I could understand the negativity better a month ago than I can now.

I would also think that any competitor would be rationale enough to see that the CRB has basically said "Whoa we better slow down and dig into this a little deeper before we make this guys do this." That is a good thing. I would hope that while a competitor may not be on the good end of an adjustment, he can see the merit behind it.

The ITA guys that got weight added aren't screaming. I think some of the ones that got weight added should be pretty upset.

I know that most of the BMW competitors don't see this, but it is pretty dicouraging for a 10/10ths anything to get his a$$ handed to him by a 75% effort BMW. Or to see a driver who spanks EVERYONE in one class jump ito a spec miata and not even be a contender. I may be speaking out of turn, but what I THINK everyone else wants is just to make it so that a well driven 10/10ths BMW vs a well driven 10/10th's RX7, or 240 Z is a good race. If a 10/10th BMW can't run near the point end of a tough field when they get done, I'll be back on here fussing that they went to far. I have already questioned the size of the SIR to AB and Joe Harlan.

Give it a chance

One the negativity, I was mainly refering to the comment about not getting your question answered. I'll ask Bruce to reply for you.

[Joe Harlan]

AB,
I have no supporting evidence to support my statement. But do you any any that it may be the right amount? I believe in a common sense approach to things. Just like I warned you about SIRS to be applied in THEORY. To quote Marshall Lytle, "we don race in theory". [i][u]I'm sure you are not getting the results that you hoped for that is why the hush hush and further testing is needed. Getting back to the weight, even the SCCA PRO understands that if you penalize a car you do it in smaller increments. To hit us all at once then make us put all this weight in 3 or 4 sq. ft. to me is not good common sense. If you want to hit us 1st with a 100# then see if what does, then add weight as required, to me this is a common sense approach. I already told you that I will go along with the SIR also, I beleive that if the SCCA will implement this tested (as well as can be expected) I should & will give them the benefit of the doubt. I truely don't want to stop SCCA racing, i know many very good people who race with me in other makes and other classes. I am trying to be as reasonable as I can. We (BMW owners) just want to be dealt with in good faith. Would you wanted to be treated any differently?
dj
[/b]

Haha,,,,Just like the good faith you all have showed by coming running to the CRB saying "we are driving overdogs, we need adjusted to fit the class, We shouldn't be driving all the other competitive models away"

Yeah we all want to be treated fairly and in good faith and I think that's what this group has done. They have gotten the CRB to quit treating the best classes in SCCA like a redheaded bastard child wearing the scarlet letter that the CRB and BOD has ignored for years.

[Fastfred92]

I may be speaking out of turn, but what I THINK everyone else wants is just to make it so that a well driven 10/10ths BMW vs a well driven 10/10th's RX7, or 240 Z is a good race.
[/b]

Sounds alot like this years ARRC

[Ron Earp]

. To hit us all at once then make us put all this weight in 3 or 4 sq. ft. to me is not good common sense. If you want to hit us 1st with a 100# then see if what does, then add weight as required, to me this is a common sense approach. Idj
[/b]

Don’t make it so hard. Tungsten (W) is very dense to the tune of 19250 kg/m^3. Or, 1198 lbs/ft^3.

All you’d need for 300 lbs is a block 6” x 6” x 11”, or variations of that theme. Go to www.onlinemetals.com and they will size one up for you. Ask them to drill ½” holes through it for you to mount it and you are done.

I’d probably weld a ¼” steel plate into the pan to mount it through to give it additional strength (and it’ll reduce the size of the block since that is weight too!) and you’ll be good to go. It isn't going anywhere.

[Andy Bettencourt]

AB,
I have no supporting evidence to support my statement. But do you any any that it may be the right amount?[/b]

How did I know this was going to be your response? We don't know what teh EXACT weight should be. But we DO know what the weight should be if you run it through the SAME process the other cars have been through. Apples to apples. Fair is fair. That weight may seem extreme to you, but 180ft/lbs of torque and 200+ whp seems extreme to others in the class.

I'm sure you are not getting the results that you hoped for that is why the hush hush and further testing is needed. [/b]

I have stated that we have CONFLICTING data points. One one 'in the zone' and one not. We can't figure out why so we are testing further instead of just saying it's ok.

Getting back to the weight, even the SCCA PRO understands that if you penalize a car you do it in smaller increments. To hit us all at once then make us put all this weight in 3 or 4 sq. ft. to me is not good common sense. If you want to hit us 1st with a 100# then see if what does, then add weight as required, to me this is a common sense approach. [/b]

Why does everyone like to site SCCA Pro REWARDS weight? These are dynamic competition adjustments that have to do ONLY with on-track performance. They couldn't be further from what we are doing. They have NOTHING to do with how cars are initailly classified. If the CRB was to classifiy the E36 325 today, it would arive in the GCR at 3100-3150. Period.

It's not about inching up to the 'correct' weight. It's about setting it and forgetting it. No comp adjustments, no political BS, just the same process everyone else is held to.

I already told you that I will go along with the SIR also, I beleive that if the SCCA will implement this tested (as well as can be expected) I should & will give them the benefit of the doubt. I truely don't want to stop SCCA racing, i know many very good people who race with me in other makes and other classes. I am trying to be as reasonable as I can. We (BMW owners) just want to be dealt with in good faith. Would you wanted to be treated any differently?
dj[/b]

I appreciate your position and believe that you are genuine in your statements and THANK YOU for your patience. Let's just try and support our opinions with reasoning and facts.

[dj10]

Sounds alot like this years ARRC
[/b]

Fred,
I don't what races Jim was at or watched last year but they obviously didn't see the same races or were in the same races as me.
I'll give the SIR a chance, I won't give into 300 lbs. dumped on me at one time.
dj

[Greg Amy]

Sounds alot like this years ARRC
[/b]

[dj10]

How did I know this was going to be your response? We don't know what teh EXACT weight should be. But we DO know what the weight should be if you run it through the SAME process the other cars have been through. Apples to apples. Fair is fair. That weight may seem extreme to you, but 180ft/lbs of torque and 200+ whp seems extreme to others in the class.
I have stated that we have CONFLICTING data points. One one 'in the zone' and one not. We can't figure out why so we are testing further instead of just saying it's ok.
Why does everyone like to site SCCA Pro REWARDS weight? These are dynamic competition adjustments that have to do ONLY with on-track performance. They couldn't be further from what we are doing. They have NOTHING to do with how cars are initailly classified. If the CRB was to classifiy the E36 325 today, it would arive in the GCR at 3100-3150. Period.

It's not about inching up to the 'correct' weight. It's about setting it and forgetting it. No comp adjustments, no political BS, just the same process everyone else is held to.
I appreciate your position and believe that you are genuine in your statements and THANK YOU for your patience. Let's just try and support our opinions with reasoning and facts.
[/b]

How did I know this was going to be your response? We don't know what teh EXACT weight should be. But we DO know what the weight should be if you run it through the SAME process the other cars have been through. Apples to apples. Fair is fair. That weight may seem extreme to you, but 180ft/lbs of torque and 200+ whp seems extreme to others in the class.

Why wasn't this weight given to us at the start? If the weight was in error why hasn't some made adjustments before now instead of dumping all this weight at one time? You can't say you know how these cars will handle in sprint races or enduros at 3100-3150# can you? Or can you? in theory? I assume those torque numbers are on a dynojet, because my numbers are from a mustang and are lower. So make sure all your numbers reflect the same kind of dyno so you can compare apples to apples. AB, are all your numbers from all the ITS cars from Dynojets?[i][u] At least NASA understands this and will only accept dynojet numbers.
What ever adjustments are made, I hate to tell you, ARE ALL track performance adjustments. I again do believe that SIR's given proper testing a place in racing. They will hurt the people that have really spent a lot of money to develop thier Motecs and Engines.
dj

[gpeluso]

Looks like AB is spinning again. Rob has made a great point. AB makes statements about results shouldn't be used. Isn't that what COMP. ADJ. are? Why did they add a restrictor last year? AB, READ THE THEAD HEADING.....SIR TEST RESULT. Why do you get to hold the info....are you better than everyone else. Don't get pissed, but that is how you come off. I think by telling us you know something,but won't reveal it is wrong. When you treat us like children.....we may act like children.......and believe me, you aint my daddy.

Greg

Please explain how the 'process' doesn't/can't/won'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 'process' 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]

[Andy Bettencourt]

Great post Greg!

I am responding to individual issues as they come up. In the last 7 minutes, I have received 3 PM's telling me to stop replying because you guys just don't get it. You define the reason for their messages.

As far as me being 'better' than you? Nice. I am part of the process. Is it not prudent to collect all the facts before making a decision? Yes. Would you like the info piece by piece so you can prejudice your opinion? No.

Have fun. You will know the final decision when I do.

AB

[Greg Amy]

Looks like AB is spinning again.[/b]

Oh, no!...I DID wander back into the BimmerForums...! C'mon, fess up: you're "maranelloman", aren't you? Seriously?



On edit:I don't need no steenkin' PM: Andy, just stop please? You're getting nowhere, these guys will never be satisfied. You might as well teach the ole proverbial pig to sing...

Please, I beg you: stop trying to get anywhere with these guys. Please. Pretty please. With sugar on top.

[Bill Miller]

Why wasn't this weight given to us at the start? If the weight was in error why hasn't some made adjustments before now instead of dumping all this weight at one time?[/b]

dj, have you been living under a rock for the last 3-4 years? What part of "there was no 'process' or 'formula' for spec'ing cars before this iteration of the ITAC developed one" did you miss? And I guess you missed the part where the CRB (CB at the time) changed the weight of the car from 2850# to 2950#, and the E36 guys screamed "illegal comp. adj." and the CB capitulated and reset the weight to 2850#. I guess you also missed the part where this ITAC asked for weight on the car last year, and for some reason the CRB threw a flat-plat restrictor at it.

I feel bad for the ITAC on this one. The CRB did this, but it's the folks on the ITAC that are taking the heat for it. But, it sure wouldn't be the first time that the CRB (or C put an AdHoc committee in a tight spot.



Andy,

Point taken about the realignment. I thought you were referring to the E36. I was not aware that it was a seperate line item.

Joe,

I've got no problem w/ the CRB changing rules, but they should change the rules first, not as an aside, or after the fact. BTW, there was nothing in the notice for the E36 SIR about changing the PCA rule.

Greg (Peluso),

Your comments aren't worth reading, much less worthy of a response.

[Knestis]

To summarize:

Some BMW entrants: "We're getting screwed and are going to hate anything that makes us go slower."

Some other BMW entrants: "Please stop embarrassing me with all of this, and just come to a decision so we can go racing."

Most other ITS entrants: <crickets chirping, thought balloon> "I&#39;m keeping my mouth shut because whatever I say will be colored by the fact that I gain if the Bimmers lose."

Those without a dog in the fight: "This is a huge, damned mess that we shouldn&#39;t even be in. Follow the bigger policy in place, give &#39;em lead, and be done with it."

ITAC members: "What past crime did I commit that makes me deserving of this?"

CRB members: "Did someone call for a tee time tomorrow morning?"

K

[gpeluso]

<_<
Bill,
I think this thead needs to end. Just let us know when you have something.

GregPeluso

[BMWE46ITS]

Do you have any supporting info/data/facts/comparisons to support that 3100-3150 would be &#39;excessive&#39; or is it pure speculation as the car has been living inside the 2850lb nirvana for years now? Something that the detractors of the process weight have yet to belly-up with.

AB
[/b]

Andy,

Supporting Data??? yeah it&#39;s called race results, please explain to me AGAIN why we can&#39;t use race results to make adjustments. Please look at the 2004 race season here in the North East, where we had top drivers in top 9.5/ 10ths prepped cars. The races always came down to the wire and you never knew if a Mazda or a BMW was going to win. The championship came down to one point and the racing was great and very clean. If you end up putting 300 lbs on the BMW it will be a major mistake and it’s just simply too much weight for the class / car. If anyone disagrees with this then please explain why the 2005 ARRC qualifying and race results for this past year were so close with the top cars and top drivers attending.

BTW arn&#39;t we just looking for close racing with different makes??

2005 Arrc race results top 8 positon/ car makes

1 BMW
2 Mazda
3 BMW
4 Datsun
5 Mazda
6 Mazda
7 Honda
8 BMW

Four different makes in the top eight positions - seems balanced to me.

[specialtyautomo]

I&#39;ll say it again give the e36 300lbs no restrictor and rr shocks bhahahahahahahahahaha.