SIR TEST RESULTS

[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'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

[its66]

Fred,
Over the years I'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's barely been three hours. Darin probably hasn't even seen this yet. Bruce rarely checks out IT.COM anymore.

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[Doc Bro]

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.
dj
[/b]

DJ

The "rewards weight " is an entirely different thing and cannot be included in this debate.

Secondly, adding 100 lbs on three different occasions will further make the e36 guys feel (and rightfully so) targeted and will undoubtedly further fuel their rage.

Lastly, if you are going to put 300 lbs in 3-4 sq ft on your floorboard you really need to do more homework. How about a cool suit, accusump, spare tire, "tow hooks", full tank, big stainless exhaust? Do I need to keep going?

Is the sky falling or is it just me??????

R

[Ron Earp]

their rage.

Lastly, if you are going to put 300 lbs in 3-4 sq ft on your floorboard you really need to do more homework. How about a cool suit, accusump, spare tire, "tow hooks", full tank, big stainless exhaust? Do I need to keep going?

[/b]

As I mentioned about 20 posts ago, putting 300lbs of tungsten in the car is about 6"x6"x11" of space - plently left for all the things you mention. And it isn't a rare super expensive material either, it is fairly cheap.

If people spent as much time figured out how to put weight in their car as they did plumbing all the other things, making it faster, getting more out of the engine then adding weight wouldn't be a problem. Instead they like to say how it CAN'T be done, instead of figuring out how it can be done. But, there again, it is weight and something they don't want, so barriers pop up immediately.

[Doc Bro]

As I mentioned about 20 posts ago, putting 300lbs of tungsten in the car is about 6"x6"x11" of space - plently left for all the things you mention. And it isn't a rare super expensive material either, it is fairly cheap.

If people spent as much time figured out how to put weight in their car as they did plumbing all the other things, making it faster, getting more out of the engine then adding weight wouldn't be a problem. Instead they like to say how it CAN'T be done, instead of figuring out how it can be done. But, there again, it is weight and something they don't want, so barriers pop up immediately.
[/b]

Ron,

Point noted about the tungsten (wolfram ) but who in their right mind would take 300 lbs of add on's and elect to simply carry a block of anything around?

In regards to your second paragraph Ron, I totally agree.

"whether you say you can or you can't, either way you're right"

R

[GKR_17]

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... ...And it isn't a rare super expensive material either, it is fairly cheap.
[/b]

Not that this is relavent to SIR's, but a look at onlinemetals.com doesn't show it in their inventory. Also, the ballpark number I've heard for tungsten block is $75+ per pound, which works out to $22,500 for that 300 lb. sample. If that's cheap, I need to start marketing Jensen parts.

[dj10]

DJ

The "rewards weight " is an entirely different thing and cannot be included in this debate.

Secondly, adding 100 lbs on three different occasions will further make the e36 guys feel (and rightfully so) targeted and will undoubtedly further fuel their rage.

Lastly, if you are going to put 300 lbs in 3-4 sq ft on your floorboard you really need to do more homework. How about a cool suit, accusump, spare tire, "tow hooks", full tank, big stainless exhaust? Do I need to keep going?

Is the sky falling or is it just me??????

R
[/b]

LOL Rob, adding 100# is anything but a reward. I would have thought adding additional 100# weights is a good way to monitor the cars performance just in case someone is wrong and 300# is too much. It wouldn't bother me to do it this way. Lastly, I won't dump 300#'s of anything on my passanger floor...period. I'd like to see this SIR through if I could.
dj

[BMWE46ITS]

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
[/b]

Andy,

Supporting Data??? yeah it's called race results, please explain to me AGAIN why we can'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'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.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,


Four different makes in the top eight positions - seems balanced to me. [/b]

Just another example as to why you can't use results. Selective use to support your cause.

Rob, you quote close racing in the NE in 2004. That was with UNRESTRICTED E36's. That year at the ARRC, the car you ran neck and neck with (RX-7) in your E36 was 2 seconds off the pace at RA to the unrestricted Bimmers - and was the top non-Bmw at the race.

This year, when they were restricted, it looks even - but I can provide you WAY more data points as to why the race wasn't as close as the numbers showed than you can to show otherwise.

I'll say it for the 500th time, the CRB isn't looking for ADDITIONAL restriction on the E36, just a better, more effective one that can't be cheated in a situation where you know a teardown isn't coming...hence the SIR. If you don't like that, the only other alternative is to have it weigh WHAT IT SHOULD.

And using a car count as data to support a balanced result! HA! If you want to use results, at least look at the times...maybe because it doesn't support your arguement? The Z was 1.4 seconds back, the Prelude was 2.3 seconds back...BALANCED??? I can spin the numbers as fast as you can.

Here's a revelation - it's not about results. It's about the process.

Andy, slowly put down the keyboard and step away. Slowly, slowly, slowly...very good...go visit your kids, kiss your wife, etc...

OK, everyone else, move along please, there's nothing to see here...! [/b]

Dang Greg - should have looked down further! Backing away....further....further....

[robits325is]

Just another example as to why you can't use results. Selective use to support your cause.

Rob, you quote close racing in the NE in 2004. That was with UNRESTRICTED E36's. That year at the ARRC, the car you ran neck and neck with (RX-7) in your E36 was 2 seconds off the pace at RA to the unrestricted Bimmers - and was the top non-Bmw at the race.
[/b]

Andy - those were Jeffs comments. (Not sure if you are keeping stats on who is making comments)

[GKR_17]

... I think everyone has to look at the car they are considering building and if it doesn't add up on paper that it may be a contender - then the stupid thing may very well be spending big money to build one and then crying wolf when prod-style comp adjustments are the only thing that will bring it to the podium...

AB
[/b]

This quote was from a different topic, and would seem to contradict much of what has been said here.

Grafton

[Andy Bettencourt]

This quote was from a different topic, and would seem to contradict much of what has been said here.

Grafton [/b]

Besides the fact that it is out of context and about a different topic...

...how do you feel it contradicts? I think it actually supports. All of the changes are being done to a 'process'. The process is on paper and has nothing to do with on-track performance. If you look at the specs of a car on paper, and you feel it isn't the best choice, build something else!

The BMW is an exception. It was decided to keep the weight at 2850 and reverse engineer the 'process', hence the SIR (and flat plate from a year ago for that matter).

It would be great if we could just put this to bed asap. We are working on it.

AB