April SIR ruling

[DoubleD]

The ruling is in: 29mm SIR effective 05/01/2007.
April Fastrack

I'm a little disappointed test results were never published, to be honest.

tom
[/b]

Here ya go. This dyno is a 29mm SIR on a freshly built (1 race w/ BMWCCA) Stickley motor, custom tune non-Motec. This is, excepting the 3 or 4 ponies Motec may provide, a max motor. I don't have the baseline or I would happily post it as well.

An ITAC member was in attendance and witnessed that the install and dyno are legit. The car would not reve past 3k rpm w/ the SIR in front of the HFM.

And yes, I was fully aware of this dyno when I posted weeks ago. The owner of this car now states that he will not race with SCCA in any class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here ya go. This dyno is a 29mm SIR on a freshly built (1 race w/ BMWCCA) Stickley motor, custom tune non-Motec. This is, excepting the 3 or 4 ponies Motec may provide, a max motor. I don't have the baseline or I would happily post it as well.

[/b]

The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision (although he did set a track record in Texas recently!).

19whp taken off the top with 5 ft/lbs lost.

AB

[DoubleD]

The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision (although he did set a track record in Texas recently!).

19whp taken off the top with 5 ft/lbs lost.

AB
[/b]

We were told, by you, that the SIR would cap power, not cut it accross the entire usable RPM range. So much that, eh?

At least Finch is only charging a 25% restocking fee on the 27mm SIR.

Well, on the bright side, the RX7 just got more valuable and, being as it is the car to have, folks building/tuning them will now have a financial opportunity.

[rx3sp]

Well, on the bright side, the RX7 just got more valuable and, being as it is the car to have, folks building/tuning them will now have a financial opportunity.
[/b]

Actually, you are only partially correct. The 944 is the car to have, if you want to win a race mano a mano.

However, in the new way of doing things in IT, there are no races without handicappinng winners until the RX7 wins.

so, you are right, in the new world world of Sissy C. A. Improved Touring,

[rx3sp]

The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision

AB
[/b]

Um... according to previous posts by the backmarkers, the SIR should penalize all motors down to a certain level, and the original horsepower level is inconsequential.

So then why do you mention it here ?

P.S. please stop misusing the word "decision". The process used here by the ITAC and CRB definitely does not meet this definition:

DECISION: a position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration; "a decision unfavorable to the opposition"; "his conclusion took the evidence into account"; "satisfied with the panel's determination"

RX3SP

[e36its]

The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision (although he did set a track record in Texas recently!).
19whp taken off the top with 5 ft/lbs lost.[/b]

Somewhat confused... I thought since the SIR doesn't affect airflow below a certain HP level a low(er) HP motor would be less affected. If the calculated output for the 29mm is 180 RWHP, wouldn't we expect a motor making 180 RWHP to be virtually unaffected and one making 205 RWHP to be losing 25 RWHP?

tom

[dj10]

The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision (although he did set a track record in Texas recently!).

19whp taken off the top with 5 ft/lbs lost.

AB [/b]

AB, for a fact this BMW you know had a baseline of 180 rwhp without the SIR correct? If this is the case, #1. I don't believe this is a Stickley motor, I know for a fact that his baseline engines are much higher than 180 rwhp with FPR restrictors and without SIR's.

[DoubleD]

AB, for a fact this BMW you know had a baseline of 180 rwhp without the SIR correct? If this is the case, #1. I don't believe this is a Stickley motor, I know for a fact that his baseline engines are much higher than 180 rwhp with FPR restrictors and without SIR's.
[/b]

It was over 180. I'll see if I can get the baseline. Also, and more importantly, comparing hp numbers from diffeerent dyno's is a tricky business. I've seen variation of 5% in stock E46 M3 motors from dyno to dyno. Heck, I've seen a dyno plot that showed a 100% stock E46 M3 making, if you assume a conservative drivetrain loss, 360chp. Obviously it was not....the dyno was just reading a bit high.

[gpeluso]

It was over 180. I'll see if I can get the baseline. Also, and more importantly, comparing hp numbers from diffeerent dyno's is a tricky business. I've seen variation of 5% in stock E46 M3 motors from dyno to dyno. Heck, I've seen a dyno plot that showed a 100% stock E46 M3 making, if you assume a conservative drivetrain loss, 360chp. Obviously it was not....the dyno was just reading a bit high.
[/b]

Obviously the SIR does not perform they way we were TOLD by ITAC. 161whp, what can you do with that? Is this the final word from the SCCA? Can someone from the SCCA step in and stop the madness from the ITAC and the CRB? This decision will hurt all car counts in ITS. The fight has been fought and the BMW guys lost......hopefully the SCCA regions realize this will hurt their bottom line. Some regions may suffer more than others. Does anyone care? Long live the MAZDA. Where can I get one of those?

Greg

[DoubleD]

Where can I get one of those?

Greg
[/b]

Flatout motorsports?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Flatout motorsports? [/b]

And that in itself sums you up.

AB,

If 180 whp isn't a good effort for ITS why was the goal set for 180whp with the SIR???????? I know Chuck's engine do produce more than that AB. If I'm Chuck, I'm pissed that you said this engine he built isn't a good effort.

Greg [/b]

Are you serious? An unrestricted 180whp effort is WAY off the mark. Sorry to tell you. If you know Chuck's engines produce more than that, then why are you arguing that the above dyno plot was one of his engines? I don't care who thinks what about that comment, 180whp is NOT the result you are looking for in a all-out effort. Actually, it's about a 15% improvment. You need to be in the 30% range on these cars.

Hello? Bueller?

[lateapex911]

It was over 180. ....[/b]

You are right. I have the plot on my computer. Baseline indicated a power of over 180. To be exact, it was 180.01 at approx 6100 rpm. Torque was 174.69.

Engine was reported to be a Stikley, one race, custom chip.

[gpeluso]

You are right. I have the plot on my computer. Baseline indicated a power of over 180. To be exact, it was 180.01 at approx 6100 rpm. Torque was 174.69.

Engine was reported to be a Stikley, one race, custom chip.
[/b]

Jake,

Stickley builds one of the best motors. I thought the problem was that all the pro motors where something like 225whp. I'm lost here. Chuck's motors are just as good as Sunbelts. Help us out with the reason for the SIR at all if your findings were a pro built motor producing 180.01 whp. Are you telling us that if I pay Stickley $8,000 for an engine I will end up with motor after SIR producing 161 whp and a car weighing 2850 lbs. That's 20 whp less than an RX7 and over 150 lbs more. BAD TIMING, BAD DECISION.

Greg

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jake,

Stickley builds one of the best motors. I thought the problem was that all the pro motors where something like 225whp. I'm lost here. Chuck's motors are just as good as Sunbelts. Help us out with the reason for the SIR at all if your findings were a pro built motor producing 180.01 whp. Are you telling us that if I pay Stickley $8,000 for an engine I will end up with motor after SIR producing 161 whp and a car weighing 2850 lbs. That's 20 whp less than an RX7 and over 150 lbs more. BAD TIMING, BAD DECISION.

Greg [/b]

I like where you say you are lost. You are right!

No verification of 225whp has EVER been produced. Pure rumor. We have data from 180-210. I am sure there are lower versions out there - but who cares? The beauty of IT is that you can run your stock motor and have fun until you build to the limit of the class - then, and only then, should you expect to run at the front, should the driver be up to the task.

Did you read DJ's post? 180whp is NOT a good effort for a E36 325 in IT trim. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.

Your numbers example is a tough one. Is that car competitive? Nope...but it is 25-30whp off the mark right from the start so even if it ran unrestricted, there is no way it could compete with properly built stuff. Get in the game.

[dj10]

You are right. I have the plot on my computer. Baseline indicated a power of over 180. To be exact, it was 180.01 at approx 6100 rpm. Torque was 174.69.

Engine was reported to be a Stikley, one race, custom chip. [/b]

Thanks for clearing this up on that car, Jake & AB. I would caution everyone when associating Chuck's name with this engine, as Plumbo said he might get ticked off , because there is no way in hell that's one of Chuck's engines.
What ever it is, is not what I would call a good baseline race car in which I would rely on it's data. Everyone needs to keep a clear head and not jump to any conclusions. Now we know what we have to use, I'm sure we will get other reports shortly. I just ordered my 29 mm SIR today. I know, at least for me I want to give it a try. If it doesn't work for some reason, I have other options.
I would of liked the SCCA to give us instructions on how to mount this SIR. It should be manditory to mount it a certain way.
dj

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thanks for clearing this up on that car, Jake & AB. I would caution everyone when associating Chuck's name with this engine, as Plumbo said he might get ticked off , because there is no way in hell that's one of Chuck's engines.
What ever it is, is not what I would call a good baseline race car in which I would rely on it's data. Everyone needs to keep a clear head and not jump to any conclusions. Now we know what we have to use, I'm sure we will get other reports shortly. I just ordered my 29 mm SIR today. I know, at least for me I want to give it a try. If it doesn't work for some reason, I have other options.
I would of liked the SCCA to give us instructions on how to mount this SIR. It should be manditory to mount it a certain way.
dj [/b]

DJ,

The validity of this data, solid or not, is exactly why the CRB and ITAC didn't slowly leak the info piece by piece. Assumptions and conclusions would be based on a lack of complete info. Again, the BMW guys, the rest of ITS and all of SCCA are due the conclusions and results...I will push to get them out asap.

Thanks for your patience and level-headedness on this.

AB

[Geo]

AB, for a fact this BMW you know had a baseline of 180 rwhp without the SIR correct? If this is the case, #1. I don't believe this is a Stickley motor, I know for a fact that his baseline engines are much higher than 180 rwhp with FPR restrictors and without SIR's.
[/b]

Sorry if this has already been addressed. I'm trying to do 3 things at once at work and this is one I shouldn't be doing at the moment.

This engine has one day break-in. I suspect it's still a bit tight. Also, the AF ratios don't look great. However, sometimes the dyno widebands aren't the most accurate (as opposed to a Horriba), so the ratios may or may not be accurate. Mostly I suspect it's still a bit tight.

[dj10]

Sorry if this has already been addressed. I'm trying to do 3 things at once at work and this is one I shouldn't be doing at the moment.

This engine has one day break-in. I suspect it's still a bit tight. Also, the AF ratios don't look great. However, sometimes the dyno widebands aren't the most accurate (as opposed to a Horriba), so the ratios may or may not be accurate. Mostly I suspect it's still a bit tight.
[/b]

Well I know Chuck, and his engines are clearanced to make HP immediately.

All these personal attacks and accusations have to stop, guys this isn't JR HIGH SCHOOL! I'm disappointed that the results haven't been posted as promised, I'm alittle bummed that the CRB hasn't made it manditory for the placement of the SIR so now it's a gussing game. The CRB has made a decision. Try it if you don't like the results, we have other options.

[Geo]

Well I know Chuck, and his engines are clearanced to make HP immediately.

All these personal attacks and accusations have to stop, guys this isn't JR HIGH SCHOOL! I'm disappointed that the results haven't been posted as promised, I'm alittle bummed that the CRB hasn't made it manditory for the placement of the SIR so now it's a gussing game. The CRB has made a decision. Try it if you don't like the results, we have other options.
[/b]

Speaking of Jr. High...

How in bloody hell was that a personal attack or accusation? I'm at a loss for this....

[lateapex911]

Here ya go. This dyno is a 29mm SIR on a freshly built (1 race w/ BMWCCA) Stickley motor, custom tune non-Motec. This is, excepting the 3 or 4 ponies Motec may provide, a max motor. I don't have the baseline or I would happily post it as well.

An ITAC member was in attendance and witnessed that the install and dyno are legit. The car would not reve past 3k rpm w/ the SIR in front of the HFM.

And yes, I was fully aware of this dyno when I posted weeks ago. The owner of this car now states that he will not race with SCCA in any class.


[/b]

What's interesting about that run is what it really revealed. Not much. Scientific procedures require tossing out that data point as the A/F ratio was off the mark...by a lot. lok at the graph and note the lean condition. I understand that the baseline for that car also had similar issues with the A/F ratio. In short, that car wasn't a good indicator. Custom programmed chip or not, it wasn't putting down proper power levels in baseline trim.

Observations show that the car does adjust for such things, and the jagged line might be an indication of just that.

It's too bad that those results were pretty much voided by the tuning issues going in. I know we all appreciate the owners time and trouble. And perhaps he learned something too.

A note on the SIR. I had expected to see a commentary regarding the best placement, but it appears that it's not there. From observations, I would advise that the SIR be placed AFTER the AFM. The AFM seems to like a clean and linear stream of air, which is best found right after the filter and before the SIR.

So, it should be installed in this order:
Outside air>air filter>AFM>SIR>TB>manifold> pistons, etc. All air, of course, must pass through the SIR.

Also, I have been informed that inquiries to the supplying companies indicate that only Raetech had sold any SIRs, and will exchange the 27mm insert for a 29mm insert, at no cost.