April SIR ruling

[Greg Krom]

Well Greg that's why the guy's that are doing the job are doing it. They understand that the things they are using for +'s and -'s are needed to get these cars closer than we ever have in the past. I have worked with enigines all of my life and I can tell you I have never seen a case that VTEC was not a performance gain in this type of application. FI is a gain over carbs, Brakes are better than they ever have been...and Gear ratio's will play a big part in any cars success. So I guess I agree with your math far more than I disagree with the ITAC's math.
[/b]

The condescending tone is completely uncalled for. I have not said one nasty or condescending word to anybody in this discussion.

I understand, and agree completely, that certain aspects of vehicle construction need to be factored into their race classification and that additions or subtractions need to be made to cover that.

If you go back and look at my original post, you would see that my one and only point of argument here is that using different multipliers for percentage HP increase in IT trim opens the "process" up for question.

Based on the specs that Andy gave me - what weights would you have come up with? Where is my math on those examples flawed?

I know that VTEC is a performance gain and that FI is (typically) better than carbs. My point is that those features are why a car has X hp and torque and they likely do not need to be further penalized (or rewarded) for the features that resulted in those ratings.

Here's an exercise - you've got two cars sitting next to each other, both with identical chassis, drive configuration, brakes, gearing, aero, etc. Both have 170 hp and 150 torque. One is VTEC DOHC, one is DOHC with "traditional" valve timing. What are the weights? Of course that is an unrealistic example but I'm curious to see the answer.

Interesting question, Joe. Seems like the bigger question is what information is relevant as an input to a performance balancing equation and what information is just a characteristic of the car chosen.

tom
[/b]

EXACTLY.

That is what I was trying to say, but couldn't come up with the right words.

[Jeremy Billiel]

I know that VTEC is a performance gain and that FI is (typically) better than carbs. My point is that those features are why a car has X hp and torque and they likely do not need to be further penalized (or rewarded) for the features that resulted in those ratings.

Here's an exercise - you've got two cars sitting next to each other, both with identical chassis, drive configuration, brakes, gearing, aero, etc. Both have 170 hp and 150 torque. One is VTEC DOHC, one is DOHC with "traditional" valve timing. What are the weights? Of course that is an unrealistic example but I'm curious to see the answer.
EXACTLY.

That is what I was trying to say, but couldn't come up with the right words.
[/b]

How did this turn into VTEC bashing now? I am always amazed by how everyone including SCCA thinks VTEC is a special button that is far superior.

Let's take a quiz...

Why did Honda build VTEC for their engines?
A. Create Better gas miliage
B. Make more HP
C. None of the above
D. A +B

Honda made VTEC to be fuel efficient below 5K when normal daily driving happens, yet still have a punch when you step on the gas. Its not magic. Honda can make non-VTEC cars make HP, but gas milage suffers.

All VTEC does if give the consumer both worlds. Thats it!

Take car A with VTEC and Car B without and their weights should be the same IMO. In fact I would prefer the non-VTEC car!

[Joe Harlan]

The condescending tone is completely uncalled for. I have not said one nasty or condescending word to anybody in this discussion.

I understand, and agree completely, that certain aspects of vehicle construction need to be factored into their race classification and that additions or subtractions need to be made to cover that.

If you go back and look at my original post, you would see that my one and only point of argument here is that using different multipliers for percentage HP increase in IT trim opens the "process" up for question.

Based on the specs that Andy gave me - what weights would you have come up with? Where is my math on those examples flawed?

I know that VTEC is a performance gain and that FI is (typically) better than carbs. My point is that those features are why a car has X hp and torque and they likely do not need to be further penalized (or rewarded) for the features that resulted in those ratings.

Here's an exercise - you've got two cars sitting next to each other, both with identical chassis, drive configuration, brakes, gearing, aero, etc. Both have 170 hp and 150 torque. One is VTEC DOHC, one is DOHC with "traditional" valve timing. What are the weights? Of course that is an unrealistic example but I'm curious to see the answer.
EXACTLY.

That is what I was trying to say, but couldn't come up with the right words.
[/b]

Greg you can read what ever tone into it you want but there was none intended. My issue is Andy posed a formula to you that included VTEC and you completely ignored or missed it.

This is not a VTEC bashing as you would put it and I agree with your information but your not being completely honest. With a custom controller Vtec has the benefit of both lowend torque and high RPM pwoer output. That is why it must be considered as part of the equation. We have to look at a fully prepped engine and control package. If it were not worth something then everyone would be happy with the stock box.

Enough of this for me...The SIR is in and I would rather spend my time answering private messages from those that are trying to make it work.

Greg, if you took anything out of any of my posts as taking a shot at you I'm sorry that's not the case.

BTW VTEC was the wrong wording how about VVT and Vtec.....That way you cover all car makers.

[Greg Krom]

Greg you can read what ever tone into it you want but there was none intended. My issue is Andy posed a formula to you that included VTEC and you completely ignored or missed it.

This is not a VTEC bashing as you would put it and I agree with your information but your nit being completely honest. With a custom controller Vtec has the benefit of both lowend torque and high RPM pwoer output. That is why it must be considered as part of the equation. We have to look at a fully prepped engine and control package. If it were not worth something then everyone would be happy with the stock box.

Enough of this for me...The SIR is in and I would rather spend my time answering private messages from those that are trying to make it work.

Greg, if you took anything out of any of my posts as taking a shot at you I'm sorry that's not the case.
[/b]

No problem. Sorry if I misread the tone.

Andy's formula did not include VTEC, at least not that I can see - I just reread it.

Here is the text:

Let me ask you this: What weight would you classifiy the following cars at?

#1. RWD, double wishbones, 50-50 weight, excellent tranny ratios, 170 stock hp. 150 stock torque
#2. FWD, struts all around, 60-40 weight, crappy tranny ratios, 170 stock hp. 150 stock torque

If you answer the same weight, you are doing a disservice to the membership. I think the members would rather a small chance of a small mistake (that is unmeasuable in IT IMHO) with the tradeoff of a chance to podium given top prep and a top drive - in almost any car in the class.

AB

[/b]

[zracre]

You dont, you start with a better car.
Why (continue to) dumb the BMW down to meet the bottom cars, just accept the fact that some companies build better "base" cars than others.

Greg has what "should" be going down right on.
Any descrepancies in the "formula" for cars opens the can of snakes going on now.

Some cars are just make better race cars than others. Time SCCA faced up to that.
Just my .02 (going back to lurking)
jimmy p.
[/b]

this is silly and out of hand...why im posting is beyond me but here goes...ITA was dominated by "H" cars...fine I drive one and tend to dominate my region (when a certain "B" car shows up...but different subject altogether) they gave me a penalty. Fine i worked with it. I rtace an ITS integra now. It is a 1.8 litre VTEC...built to the hilt it cant pull 140 ft/lbs. It probably makes 175BHP and if I spend 10k+ I can get 190...It will still not be a front runner all the time. It is too heavy. The ITAC and others have made giant leaps to make our classes more competitive. I am sure many are sore from comp adjustments. My opinion is SIR's have no place in IT but they are here so try them and stop bitching! If they dont work and you finish 2nd, oh well write to SCCA and stop bitching so much!!!!!!! I bitched about my comp adjustment and am thankful it is not an SIR. Spend your energy complaining to SCCA to remove it and add weight. I see more people on here bitching than I see in fastrack saying it should not be implemented. Get over it and move on. Squeaky wheel gets the oil...squeaking here gets you a reputation as a whiner!!!!!! Squeak to SCCA.

[Bill Miller]

Bill qualify this as your opinion.Fact is SIR's fit better in a no mod class like IT because you are not going to engineer around them period. I still feel the 29 is to big so your right the e36 is getting a gift but BFD it will be better now for other marques than it has been in years. As I said I was wrong on a poor running engine being blind to it but I have not seen any proof yet that a proper running engine has a major loss in performance. Remember HP is not what I care about under the curve. I think the torque on the bimmer is the number that will keep it up front and still the car to have..
[/b]

Seriously Joe, now it's startin to sound like double talk. You said that you can't engnieer around an SIR. Now you say that's only going to be the case on an IT motor. I'm not an engineer or a motor builder, but a motor is an air pump, the more air you can move through it, the more power it will make. The way I understand an SIR, it limits the max. flow rate through the motor. How do you engineer around that?

As far as how it will do on a 'healthy' motor, I'm willing to accept Bob Dowie's comments. It's my understanding that he did a lot of the testing at his shop.

I do agree w/ you though, peak hp isn't what's important, it's the area under the curve. And those BMW motors are torque monsters.

[Knestis]

I really used to love the conversations, debates, new ideas, new ways of looking at OLD ideas, and comraderie here and in IT more generally. I take it very personally that prevalent non-virtual world selfishness, sense of entitlement, and take-no-prisoners loud-mouthing have ruined that.

I'm equal parts embarrassed by this whole mess and irritated by the fact that it could have been avoided, had the CRB just followed the only-one-year-old process as it was designed.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg,

I think for the most part, we are on the same page. We just disagree on the % to add for IT-prep and for the amount for adders in some cases. I think that, to date, our process has been incredibly successful. The only car that keeps dodging the process is the E36 so we may never know.

While we disagree, great posts. Thanks for the well thought out info.

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Seriously Joe, now it's startin to sound like double talk. You said that you can't engnieer around an SIR. Now you say that's only going to be the case on an IT motor. I'm not an engineer or a motor builder, but a motor is an air pump, the more air you can move through it, the more power it will make. The way I understand an SIR, it limits the max. flow rate through the motor. How do you engineer around that?

As far as how it will do on a 'healthy' motor, I'm willing to accept Bob Dowie's comments. It's my understanding that he did a lot of the testing at his shop.

I do agree w/ you though, peak hp isn't what's important, it's the area under the curve. And those BMW motors are torque monsters.
[/b]

Bill, The problem with SIR's on full tilt engines is they are effected by compression and cam selection ect. So there is still some engineering in them. When classing a car in an unlimited class you have to account for all these issues. That's why IT will be easier to deal with than a full race unlimited package. We don't have those issues (or shouldn't) in IT. Why do you have to say crap like double talk and that. You have been around long enough that I have no reason to BS the system or you so back off. You don't like the idea and I do. Now it's done deal with it and learn as much as you can to help others because that's what I have done and continue to do.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You dont, you start with a better car.
Why (continue to) dumb the BMW down to meet the bottom cars, just accept the fact that some companies build better "base" cars than others.

Greg has what "should" be going down right on.
Any descrepancies in the "formula" for cars opens the can of snakes going on now.

Some cars are just make better race cars than others. Time SCCA faced up to that.
Just my .02 (going back to lurking)
jimmy p. [/b]

Jimmy,

I fear you have missed the point. It isn't about 'dumbing' anything down. It's about working with each car the same way with the same intent. There are no 'discrepencies' in the process. There are considerations for different technologies that allow for a much more accurate estimation.

Some cars ARE better than others. And I fully expect the cream to rise to the top after all the cars have been put through the process. It will happen in ITA, ITB and ITC...and the racing in those classes will be the BEST EVER this year (IMHO). Someone on the Honda BB estimated that you had 13 cool, legit choices to run in ITA and still have a chance to win...that is unprecidented and such a GOOD thing IMHO.

There is only one car in the ITCS that hasn't had it's turn through the process...and it continues to be the biggest issue in IT. If the E36 gets run through and isn't as competitive as it once was, do you still want to stick by your position that some cars are 'just better'? I ask because that is how it is for everyone else in IT.

[jimmy p]

Jimmy,

I fear you have missed the point. It isn't about 'dumbing' anything down. It's about working with each car the same way with the same intent. There are no 'discrepencies' in the process. There are considerations for different technologies that allow for a much more accurate estimation.[/b]

This is where I feel and it seems most other BMW people feel you guys completely blow it.
I stand by my original post, based on the previous post by Greg cut and pasted below in red (paraphased for brevity).
You blow it in the "subjective" adders, multipliers, etc.
Handle every car the same, use a fixed multiplier for IT prep, and "then" see what rises to the top.

Why cripple one car with additional subjective adders and multipliers just because its a better base car?
Thats just my opinion, Greg said it all better than I ever could.
See Greg's post below, it says everything I feel is wrong with the "process" system.

Thats all I will post here, as I do not race ITS so I do not feel entitled to post further on this subject but after watching it for quite some time (years) from the sidelines, it bothers me alot what is going on and I felt compelled to post.

<<< In order for a classification process to be unquestionably valid it needs to utilize consistent multipliers, across the board. If testing has shown that the average IT build yields a 25% (or 22% or 27%...) increase over stock than that is the number that needs to be used for ALL classifications, that way all of the cars in a given class will have the same bogey power to weight ratio. The ability of certain cars, or individual builders, to legally meet or exceed that bogey number will then determine the good cars versus the bad....
(cont)...
By changing the multiplier for certain cars you are opening yourselves up to crys of "foul". >>>[i][color=#FF0000]

Cheers
jimmy p.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thanks for the reply Jimmy. I stand by my response to Greg&#39;s post. There is no way you can use a static multiplier for IT-prep. It creates HUGE disparities in cars. And the notion that this is some sort of &#39;crippling&#39; of one car is really the perception of a group of drivers that haven&#39;t taken the time to see how other cars fit the same mold.

One of the big flaws in the quote you selected in red is very obvious. Using a static multiplier is NOT the way to have "all of the cars in a given class will have the same bogey power to weight ratio." The way to do that is to have a static target power to weight multiplier - which all the classes do. THAT is the part of the &#39;process&#39; that needs to remain static so that the power to weight is in the same zone - but you then have to make concessions for other attributes. Otherwise you will have ONE car dominate each class REAL quick. That is NOT what IT is about and I don&#39;t know one driver wo wants that either.

All cars have these subjective charateristics considered when classified. Membership has never been more upbeat about the classifications.

Frankly, the car that would benefit the most from your theory is anything with a rotory in it. It&#39;s BIG PICTURE time people!

AB

[lateapex911]

Jimmy, then you want "Spec IT"... and it would make me veeeerry happy, because MY weight would be based on the standard IT prep. So, my weight would be (using a &#39;standard&#39; 20% increase, it&#39;s a carbed car after all, using a 110 stock hp figure, then multilying by the standard ITA multiplier) ...well, it&#39;s silly...it&#39;s about 1880.

Of course, it has no torque.....

See, that&#39;s why the process can&#39;t just let a cars&#39; "natural strengths" define the outcome. Rotaries respond to IT prep differently. What about front wheel drive? Or transmissions with over drive 4th gears?

If we just set the weights on a flat basis with no "adders" or "subtracters" and assumed all engines gained the same amount with IT prep, we would wind up with basically 4 classes of "Spec IT", and we would all just sell our cars and buy whatever wound up on top.

So we apply repeatable factors and produce a weight using a repeatable process. In the end, of course, it&#39;s not perfect. There are too many variables, too many assumptions and too many &#39;situations&#39; to be able to create perfect parity. By situations, I mean different tracks, different weather factors, and so on.

But hopefully it&#39;s close. Very close. So close that it boils down to prep and driving, and what car likes the track that day. We think we&#39;ve made real progress in that direction. The numbers look good so far, so let the cream rise.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, The problem with SIR&#39;s on full tilt engines is they are effected by compression and cam selection ect. So there is still some engineering in them. When classing a car in an unlimited class you have to account for all these issues. That&#39;s why IT will be easier to deal with than a full race unlimited package. We don&#39;t have those issues (or shouldn&#39;t) in IT. Why do you have to say crap like double talk and that. You have been around long enough that I have no reason to BS the system or you so back off. You don&#39;t like the idea and I do. Now it&#39;s done deal with it and learn as much as you can to help others because that&#39;s what I have done and continue to do.
[/b]

Joe,

If cam selection has an impact on an SIR, how do you address cars w/ VVT? It also sounds like you can engineer around them in a GT motor, based on what you said.

I said that it sounds like double talk because you were spouting the marketing lit from Raetech, but now that these things (SIRs) don&#39;t perform as advertised, you&#39;re qualifying the cases where they work. Have you worked on a dyno w/ one (or a series) of these things (SIR) yet? If not, you&#39;ve placed a lot of faith in something that you haven&#39;t tested first-hand.

And you&#39;re right, I don&#39;t like the idea of an SIR on the E36, but probably not for the reasons that you think I don&#39;t like it. And while you may be willing to accept the CRB ramming something down your throat (something that&#39;s pretty much unproven in an IT car), I&#39;m (and it seems like several others) not.


The fact that these things come from pretty much a single supplier, who just happened to provide the test data to the SCCA, should have been a huge red flag from the outset. And I&#39;m talking about when this thing was floated for GT-Lite. It smacks of conflict of interest. And what&#39;s going to happen when you get a few people that write to the CRB, and tell them that they can&#39;t get 29mm SIRs from Raetech for another few weeks? Are they going to push the implementation date back another month? First it was one size on one date, then that date got pushed back, now the date&#39;s been pushed again, and the size has changed. But wait, the supplier doesn&#39;t have any of the new size, and won&#39;t for a week or two (maybe more). An outsider who sees this must really think we&#39;re a bunch of wankers.

This thing has been a joke for the past 2 years now, and the CRB have let the folks on the ITAC take a TON of heat for their (CRB&#39;s decision). I&#39;d love to see the data and calculations that supported the sizing of the original FPR. Any of you ITAC folks have those? How about you Mr. Dowie, do you have that information?

[erlrich]

Handle every car the same, use a fixed multiplier for IT prep, and "then" see what rises to the top.[/b]

Jimmy - just in case you happen to be one of the (few) guys who subscribes to the whole "Andy and the ITAC are out to get the BMW" b/s (not saying you are, but just in case); let me say as an ITA guy with no stake whatsoever in this issue that this would be the worst possible thing you could do. As Andy & Jake have already stated, if you were to use the same multiplier for every car you will almost certainly end up with one, or at most a couple, of cars in each class that would dominate. I&#39;m hoping that is a situation nobody wants. Is "the process" perfect? I doubt it. But from what I&#39;ve seen and heard it&#39;s a helluva lot better than anything we&#39;ve had in the past.

Oh, and for the record I am one of those who feels the BMW drivers are getting a raw deal, but I attribute it to a flawed, rushed decision-making process, not some huge conspiracy designed to benefit some individual.

Why cripple one car with additional subjective adders and multipliers just because its a better base car?[/b]

Not sure if you mean "Why cripple ANY one car..." or "Why cripple the BMW...", but if it&#39;s the former then the idea is to "cripple" the cars with perceived performance advantages in an attempt to level the playing field. If you meant the latter, well then there&#39;s no reply that will satisfy you.

[Bill Miller]

You sir are a jackass of the first order, and I hope the webmaster does the right thing and outs your ass!

&#39;Sack, how about you change your name to Mike Hunt (I actually knew someone by that name!!!)? If you don&#39;t see the sophomoric nature of it, then I can&#39;t help you. We&#39;re supposed to be adults here, engaging in mature discourse. There is a time and a place to be a jokester.
[/b]

Still waiting to see if the Webmaster will &#39;out&#39; New Guy. I agree w/ HB, I&#39;m pretty sure it&#39;s one of the regulars. What a frickin&#39; coward!

[seckerich]

Oh, and for the record I am one of those who feels the BMW drivers are getting a raw deal, but I attribute it to a flawed, rushed decision-making process, not some huge conspiracy designed to benefit some individual.


If five years plus is a rushed decision I would hate to see how long it takes to fix the next screwup. Fix it--move on and lets go racing. Jimmy P has BMW in his blood but you can not fault him for wanting to keep his chosen make at the front--just not way in the front. IT is not the "car of the year club" as it has been in the past and it is time to get used to it.

[erlrich]

Oh, and for the record I am one of those who feels the BMW drivers are getting a raw deal, but I attribute it to a flawed, rushed decision-making process, not some huge conspiracy designed to benefit some individual.

If five years plus is a rushed decision I would hate to see how long it takes to fix the next screwup. Fix it--move on and lets go racing. Jimmy P has BMW in his blood but you can not fault him for wanting to keep his chosen make at the front--just not way in the front. IT is not the "car of the year club" as it has been in the past and it is time to get used to it.
[/b]

I guess that was a poorly worded statement. What I should have said is I feel they got a raw deal, not in the fact that the car was reigned in, but in the way the changes were implemented. To force them to install a still unproven, lightly tested, brand new (to IT anyway) technology that is currently being supplied by one vendor, who doesn&#39;t even have the proper sized item in stock, and to have it all done in about five weeks is a little much to ask IMHO. I&#39;m sure if we look at it objectively there are few of us who wouldn&#39;t be pissed if it were our cars.

I really like the suggestion about giving the BMW guys an option - weight or SIR - for the remainder of this season, with the stipulation that SIRs will be required beginning 1/1/07.

[Harry Balszac]

Oh, and for the record I am one of those who feels the BMW drivers are getting a raw deal, but I attribute it to a flawed, rushed decision-making process, not some huge conspiracy designed to benefit some individual.
If five years plus is a rushed decision I would hate to see how long it takes to fix the next screwup. Fix it--move on and lets go racing. Jimmy P has BMW in his blood but you can not fault him for wanting to keep his chosen make at the front--just not way in the front. IT is not the "car of the year club" as it has been in the past and it is time to get used to it.
[/b]

First, Bill Miller, I also wish "New Guy" would be outed. But I seriously doubt it will happen, sadly.

Second, Steve, I actually agree with your points above. I do not think anyone created a conspiracy to benefit an individual. The PROCESS is flawed from start to finish, as you said so well. And one of the things (but by no means the ONLY thing) that has contributed to the process sucking so badly is the creation & continued enhancement of an appearance of conflicts of interest by Andy&#39;s involvement. Unfortunately, appearances easily become reality...and just saying "all my friends like me & say I am honest" does not cut it as a response. Andy should have recused himself long ago. As another person put it over on BF a while back, it is incumbent on LEADERS to do whatever they can to avoid even a WHIFF of an appearance of impropriety. To help improve the process, a leader like Andy should have known better, especially after the first goat rodeo with the 27mm ruling.

But, again, I agree with you: the PROCESS is the flaw, not some individual plot.

[Bill Miller]

I guess that was a poorly worded statement. What I should have said is I feel they got a raw deal, not in the fact that the car was reigned in, but in the way the changes were implemented. To force them to install a still unproven, lightly tested, brand new (to IT anyway) technology that is currently being supplied by one vendor, who doesn&#39;t even have the proper sized item in stock, and to have it all done in about five weeks is a little much to ask IMHO. I&#39;m sure if we look at it objectively there are few of us who wouldn&#39;t be pissed if it were our cars.

I really like the suggestion about giving the BMW guys an option - weight or SIR - for the remainder of this season, with the stipulation that SIRs will be required beginning 1/1/07.
[/b]

Earl,

I pretty much agree w/ you. The E36 crowd is getting boned w/ this implementation. That&#39;s not to say that the car doesn&#39;t need to fit the process, just that the moving target date and size are BS, especially since you can&#39;t even buy a 29mm SIR from Raetech today.

I&#39;m not real crazy about the either/or option, and I really don&#39;t like making the SIR required next year, if you&#39;re going to give people the weight option this year. As has been stated, shock valving and spring rates will be different, w/ the added weight. To make folks spend the money to figure out what they need, and implement it for this year, only to have it tossed in January, is not right, IMO. If you&#39;re going to open the door for the weight, that door needs to stay open. You could possibly put something in there that says that any car registered after 1/1/07 would need to run the SIR, but I&#39;m not really crazy about that idea either. For all we know, 29mm may not be the right size SIR.