The ruling is in: 29mm SIR effective 05/01/2006.
April Fastrack
I'm a little disappointed test results were never published, to be honest.
tom
[edit: I wrote 2007 when I meant 2006... and the rules say 2005!]
The ruling is in: 29mm SIR effective 05/01/2006.
April Fastrack
I'm a little disappointed test results were never published, to be honest.
tom
[edit: I wrote 2007 when I meant 2006... and the rules say 2005!]
I don't know if that was the place for them to be posted but I will push to make sure there is a write up posted somewhere.
AB
AB,I don't know if that was the place for them to be posted but I will push to make sure there is a write up posted somewhere.
AB [/b]
Can you ask or find out why no results were posted as promised? Did they ever rule on the weight placement issue?
Thanks
dj
Check the April fastrac thread DJ, it was addressed.AB,
Can you ask or find out why no results were posted as promised? Did they ever rule on the weight placement issue?
Thanks
dj
[/b]
Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
ITR RX8 (under construction)
Hey Andy... Could you or George please comment on the 161hp dyno posted over on Bimmerforums that George was witness to.
Please tell me you have some other information regarding the need for placement ahead of the HFM (as Mr. David Finch points out to be the "issue") and its possible implementation garnered from the various dyno tests you witnessed/were party to.
TIA
I don't know if that was the place for them to be posted but I will push to make sure there is a write up posted somewhere.
AB
[/b]
Mark Andrews
ITS '92 BMW 325is
St. Louis
Where did you see that? All I saw was this -- >The ruling is in: 29mm SIR effective 05/01/2007.
[/b]
"Improved Touring
ITS
1. Effective 5/1/05: BMW 325i/is (2 & 4 door) (92-95), p. 18, change the specs to read as follows: Notes: Trunk mounted fuel cell with no
larger capacity than stock. 29mm SIR required and must comply with GTCS section 17.1.2.F.4.i.10."
And this was at the top of that section
"All changes are effective 4/1/06 unless otherwise noted."
steve
Mea culpa, fingers got ahead of me and wrote 2007 (despite the 2005 typo in the FT... guess I moved a year in the wrong direction adjusting for the typo!).Where did you see that? All I saw was this -- >
"Improved Touring
ITS
1. Effective 5/1/05: BMW 325i/is"[/b]
tom
Cripes. The flippin FT has a typo. All those tech bullitens are effective 4-1-06 unless otherwise noted. The date on the E36 item should have been 5-1-06, not 05.
AB
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.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]
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.
Dave Dillehay
ITS wannabe, sorta
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!).
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]
19whp taken off the top with 5 ft/lbs lost.
AB
We were told, by you, that the SIR would cap power, not cut it accross the entire usable RPM range. So much that, eh?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]
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.
Dave Dillehay
ITS wannabe, sorta
Actually, you are only partially correct. The 944 is the car to have, if you want to win a race mano a mano.
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]
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,
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.The baseline was 180whp. It was the weakest of all motors used by the CRB as data to make this decision
AB
[/b]
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
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?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]
tom
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.
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]
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.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]
Dave Dillehay
ITS wannabe, sorta
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?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]
Greg
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.It was over 180. ....[/b]
Engine was reported to be a Stikley, one race, custom chip.
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
New England Region
lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com
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.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]
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.
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Bookmarks