April SIR ruling

[Harry Balszac]

yep, those are technology issues. but one could also say the e36 is a technology issue. auto technology made huge gains in the 20 years between the 240z and the 325is. a simple hp/lb formula cannot capture the difference in potential between different generations of technology.
[/b]

GASP!

But...but...but, Marshall, the "formula" is everything!

The SIR doesn't have to be tested---the "formula" says it will work! The "formula" and the "process" are sacrosanct and they are everything! They cannot be doubted or questioned! Do you want to be labled an infidel and an apostate?

Repent now!!!

[seckerich]

GASP!

But...but...but, Marshall, the "formula" is everything!

The SIR doesn't have to be tested---the "formula" says it will work! The "formula" and the "process" are sacrosanct and they are everything! They cannot be doubted ot questioned! Do you want to be labled an infidel and an apostate?

Repent now!!!


[/b]

And to think we almost made it two days with intelligent posts--Welcome back dick--I mean harry--or whatever.

[Harry Balszac]

And to think we almost made it two days with intelligent posts--Welcome back dick--I mean harry--or whatever.
[/b]

Thanks, man.

Maybe Santa will bring you a sense of humor for Christmas!

[seckerich]

Thanks, man.

Maybe Santa will bring you a sense of humor for Christmas!


[/b]

Pretty sure he did

[Joe Harlan]

yep, those are technology issues. but one could also say the e36 is a technology issue. auto technology made huge gains in the 20 years between the 240z and the 325is. a simple hp/lb formula cannot capture the difference in potential between different generations of technology.
[/b]

Your right Marshall and that's where the mistake was made in the past. Like the shocks and coatings ect. there was more technology let into the class than the class was designed for. The correct thing would have been not to classify the car to start with. Now that that's out of the bag the correct thing is to bring the car back to a reasonble state of tune rather than throwing them away like RR shocks and engines like we have in the past.

[Harry Balszac]

Pretty sure he did
[/b]

Hahaha...touche'

[Bill Miller]

yep, those are technology issues. but one could also say the e36 is a technology issue. auto technology made huge gains in the 20 years between the 240z and the 325is. a simple hp/lb formula cannot capture the difference in potential between different generations of technology.
[/b]

Maybe to some degree Marshall, but even if you used the same percentage gain for IT tune (25%), and then use the same wt/hp ratio (what was it for a 240Z, 15.5?), you still end up w/ a spec weight for the E36 that's over 3000# (assuming an 18% driveline loss). I imagine that if the E36 was initially spec'd @ 3000#, the vast majority of conversations around it might have been avoided. Who knows, the whole idea of PCAs may have never come up.

[e36its]

I would really be curious to hear, from the BMW guys ONLY, what alternatives they would consider viable to bring the power of their cars down to the desired maximum hp figure (which was, I believe, 180 rwhp? - correct me if I'm wrong). Assume the alternative is 300 lbs. of extra weight.[/b]

Sorry, Earl, I never answered your question. This relatively newb E36 pilot would probably take the weight. Two bits of reasoning:

1) I think it's fundamentally not IT to run these SIR things -- or at least not the way I see IT. I like the idea that an IT car can be minimally built junkyard motor with four mismatched shocks and a set of tape numbers or a $50k monster with motec shoved in a thimble. (Most of us are probably somewhere inbetween those two, eh?) Mandating minimum level of prep for non-safety equipment (like, say, $1k worth of intake stuff, SIR, and tuning) for one car only seems fundamentally off to me.

2) I'm tired of everyone accusing E36 owners of being a phallus with a sense of entitlement. If the E36 gets special treatment (and the SIR is awfully special) then this whole stupid episode will never end.

tom

[erlrich]

Sorry, Earl, I never answered your question. This relatively newb E36 pilot would probably take the weight. Two bits of reasoning:

1) I think it's fundamentally not IT to run these SIR things -- or at least not the way I see IT. I like the idea that an IT car can be minimally built junkyard motor with four mismatched shocks and a set of tape numbers or a $50k monster with motec shoved in a thimble. (Most of us are probably somewhere inbetween those two, eh?) Mandating minimum level of prep for non-safety equipment (like, say, $1k worth of intake stuff, SIR, and tuning) for one car only seems fundamentally off to me.

2) I'm tired of everyone accusing E36 owners of being a phallus with a sense of entitlement. If the E36 gets special treatment (and the SIR is awfully special) then this whole stupid episode will never end.

tom [/b]

Thanks Tom - what I meant with the question, and obviously didn't do a very good job verbalizing, was are there any other options besides weight or a restrictor that could be used to slow the car down. Would a mandated rear end gear, or rev limiter, or anything else do the trick, or are these the only two options? I was just trying to think outside the box

[lateapex911]

I imagine that if the E36 was initially spec'd @ 3000#, the vast majority of conversations around it might have been avoided. Who knows, the whole idea of PCAs may have never come up.
[/b]

Right and Wrong, Bill!

Right on the weight...I imagine if the initial weight was 3000 or so, the issues would be less intense, and might slip under the radar.

Wong on the PCA thing. The BMW wasn't the only poster child, LOL. I assure you that I would have done the same thing BMW or not.

(edited to add smiley for Bill...)

[e36its]

Thanks Tom - what I meant with the question, and obviously didn't do a very good job verbalizing, was are there any other options besides weight or a restrictor that could be used to slow the car down. Would a mandated rear end gear, or rev limiter, or anything else do the trick, or are these the only two options? I was just trying to think outside the box [/b]

Ahhh, so I was supposed to read the question you actually wrote rather than the question I thought I read. See, that's where I got lost. Sometimes a quick refresher with grade-school reading comprehension would serve me well.

I applaud the out of the box thinking in searching for a creative solution, but I'm afraid I can be of little assistance. We're probably way above the technical level my tiny caveman mind can comprehend, so I'm reduced to looking at the examples you provided: It strikes me that something like a mandated rear end gear or rev limiter might have a different impact from track to track depending on how the shift points play out. Seems too inconsistent to be a viable solution.

My concern with creative is that it still smacks of the E36 getting some sort of special treatment... I'm already afraid of lynch mobs in the paddock from the unwashed IT masses.

[Harry Balszac]

Here is an update. BMW CCA Club Racing has proposed a rule change that would allow E36 ITS cars into J-Prepared WITHOUT an SIR.

If it passes--which it will--this will enable the vast majority of ITS E36 cars to leave ITS and compete (and be competitive) in JP.

Y'all are gonna send nearly all the E36's out of ITS. Is this REALLY the desired outcome?

This is another reason why I believe this whole thing should be re-thought & re-done.

[mlytle]

Your right Marshall and that's where the mistake was made in the past. Like the shocks and coatings ect. there was more technology let into the class than the class was designed for. The correct thing would have been not to classify the car to start with. Now that that's out of the bag the correct thing is to bring the car back to a reasonble state of tune rather than throwing them away like RR shocks and engines like we have in the past.
[/b]

interesting vein here. i am specifically not being e36 specific with this. so if we take this to the next level, what level of tech is it designed for? are we locked into 70's/80's? is it destined to become vintage? how do we make accomodations for all the new tech cars that are waiting to be classed but don't fit the current tech "envelope"? maybe new classes that are focused on newer tech cars? add newer cars to the existing classes and accept obselesense of the older ones?

[mlytle]

Here is an update. BMW CCA Club Racing has proposed a rule change that would allow E36 ITS cars into J-Prepared WITHOUT an SIR.

If it passes--which it will--this will enable the vast majority of ITS E36 cars to leave ITS and compete (and be competitive) in JP.

Y'all are gonna send nearly all the E36's out of ITS. Is this REALLY the desired outcome?

This is another reason why I believe this whole thing should be re-thought & re-done.
[/b]

in the wdcr marrs series there were 6-7 e36 drivers that ran on a semi regular basis in its. as of now, zero are planning on running in its after 01may. is the lack of participation all due to the sir? no, but if you didn't know that, the lack of any e36's on the grid is a very visual event. jury is still out on whether the elimination of the "class killer" will bring the ex-participants back out of their garages.

[gpeluso]

IMPROVED TOURING needs to look at the future that is coming faster than their reactions. New production cars built over the last five years have more HP than in the past. We are all discussing RX7's and BMW's that were built 12-15 years ago. Today's cars will fit in ITS and most above this class distinction. Will any car made over the last 7 years even fit in ITB or ITC? It is time to create a class above ITS. A real class, not ITEverything. Get rid of the letter designations( Example ITS,ITA,IT. Go to something more understandable to new members( Example IT1,IT2,IT3). People can then understand that ITS is a faster group than ITA and ITA is faster than ITC. This system I beleive to be a turnoff or confusing to anyone not involved currently in SCCA. Times are changing, so must the car classifications. If these changing with the times don't start taking place IMPROVED TOURING will become a Vintage Group. And by the way it is not a bad idea to find a Vintage place for our older cars. The last suggestion I have would be to eliminate the regional class theory. Who's kidding who with this is just a regional group. You can still have regional races and national races.

Greg
My $0.02

[Bill Miller]

Right and Wrong, Bill!

Right on the weight...I imagine if the initial weight was 3000 or so, the issues would be less intense, and might slip under the radar.

Wong on the PCA thing. The BMW wasn't the only poster child, LOL. I assure you that I would have done the same thing BMW or not.
[/b]

I didn't say it wouldn't Jake, I said it might not have come up. I agree, there were other cars that needed addressing. You will also recall that I've been a champion of a standardized classification process for quite some time now.

[Joe Harlan]

IMPROVED TOURING needs to look at the future that is coming faster than their reactions. New production cars built over the last five years have more HP than in the past. We are all discussing RX7's and BMW's that were built 12-15 years ago. Today's cars will fit in ITS and most above this class distinction. Will any car made over the last 7 years even fit in ITB or ITC? It is time to create a class above ITS. A real class, not ITEverything. Get rid of the letter designations( Example ITS,ITA,IT. Go to something more understandable to new members( Example IT1,IT2,IT3). People can then understand that ITS is a faster group than ITA and ITA is faster than ITC. This system I beleive to be a turnoff or confusing to anyone not involved currently in SCCA. Times are changing, so must the car classifications. If these changing with the times don't start taking place IMPROVED TOURING will become a Vintage Group. And by the way it is not a bad idea to find a Vintage place for our older cars. The last suggestion I have would be to eliminate the regional class theory. Who's kidding who with this is just a regional group. You can still have regional races and national races.

Greg
My $0.02
[/b]

Greg I agree but most of those cars will remain in touring classes for quite some time and I personally believe that if the SIR were used on most of them to limit them to their stock numbers they would still fit in ITS at this point. There will come a time when a new class is needed or the load needs to be shifted south.

[Z3_GoCar]

If I recall correctly, the age out of touring is 10 years. This october guess how old my racing Z3 will be? That's right the 2.8l Z3 will be orphaned from touring either at the end of this year or next. Something need to be done maybe I could drop in an M44 and race e-prod, they don't care about the vin there and you can build your car from any base, but I'd hate to have to make a billet crank and h-beam rod motor, but with different cam's and a dual webber carb kit I'm sure it'd make competitive power, for $50-$75K. Maybe even make the promised 25% increase :P

James

[Bill Miller]

Greg I agree but most of those cars will remain in touring classes for quite some time and I personally believe that if the SIR were used on most of them to limit them to their stock numbers they would still fit in ITS at this point. There will come a time when a new class is needed or the load needs to be shifted south.
[/b]

Joe,

That time is now. Just a quick look at T2, and here are some cars that could run IT today, if there were a place for them:

97-01 Integra Type R
E36 M3
01 E46 M3
E36 328
01 E46 330
Z3 2.8
00-01 S2000
00-01 Boxster S
97-98 Supra

And that was ignoring all the Mustangs/Camaros/Firedbirds that would be eligible. The time for a class above ITS is now.

[x-ring]

Come on, Bill. You forgot my favorite. '90-'95 300ZX (Z32)