April SIR ruling

[Bill Miller]

Ty,

I know there are a TON of other cars that would fit. I just picked some current T2 cars that would fit. Probably another 2x cars that would be naturals to drop right in, and several T2 and T3 cars that will be eligible in another year or two. I'm going to start another thread on this, to see if we can get a few people to seriously work on crafting a car list for this new class. If we can put together a solid proposal, we should stand a chance of getting something going for next year. I'm willing to help work on it.

[Mike Courtney]

Has there been any official notice that the 5-1-05 implementaion date for the 29 sir was a typo? Don't see any addendum. There are races in April. If one were to show up for a race in April with an ITS E36 what should he / she assume the rules are?

1. Must run a 29 sir? Rule says in effect 5-1-05. Are they even available for this weekend?
2. 4-1-06 rule for 27 sir would seem to over rule even though this was published in March before April Fastrack?
3. FPR spec from last year since there has been mention on forums that April Fastrack was a typo? Doesn't seem forum comments would over ride a written rule.

The last thing that should happen on top of this whole mess is that someone has to deal with a protest becasue of an uncorrected typo = or maybe it is not a typo??

Any comments?

[lateapex911]

Well, I know it's a typo. Should have read 5.1.06. Until then the FPR is the best choice, IMHO. But I'm not an official... I'll run it up the flagpole and see what shakes out.

[Mike Courtney]

SCCA has posted a tech bulletin on the SCCA Garage page that clears this matter up for us. Thank you!
http://scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/06-04a.pdf

[lateapex911]

Ran it up the flagpole, LOL. Thank Stan Rider, CRB guy, who made the phone call that got it done.

[dj10]

Ran it up the flagpole, LOL. Thank Stan Rider, CRB guy, who made the phone call that got it done. [/b]

I hate like hell going against my word, but I just had to post this.
I hope the CRB will extend us a month or 2 to get this damn restrictor straightened out or make a rule, how they exactly want this mounted. Sorry we don't have BMW's R&R faculity to use. Almost certain we will have to have chips burnt for this damn thing. They waited 6 yrs. how about a couple more months to make sure things are right and that we can compete.

[BMW RACER]

DJ
Good point, I was thinking the same thing. I can plumb in the SIR fairly easy but I'm concerned about damaging the motor if it runs too lean. I need to find a reliable dyno shop in the area (Los Angeles) that can test the car and make whatever programing changes are required.

WHO DO WE SPEAK TO TO REQUEST MORE TIME? (STAN RYDER?)

Would have been a lot easier to throw on some extra weight.

[dj10]

DJ
Good point, I was thinking the same thing. I can plumb in the SIR fairly easy but I'm concerned about damaging the motor if it runs too lean. I need to find a reliable dyno shop in the area (Los Angeles) that can test the car and make whatever programing changes are required.

WHO DO WE SPEAK TO TO REQUEST MORE TIME? (STAN RYDER?)

Would have been a lot easier to throw on some extra weight. [/b]

Just email the [email protected].

What John, you don&#39;t have a R&D Shop at your disposal! Gheez, I have the BMW Factory Race Team coming up to get my car and install the SIR, then Boris, Said..<pun intented>........he would test it for me.

I voted against the weight when I thought they were going to stuff it all in the footwell. Since they gave us the passanger side for the weight, I admit I think I screwed the pooch. Oh well, won&#39;t be the 1st time or the last.

[JamesB]

they gave the passanger side but not till next year.

[JeffYoung]

If they had given you 300 lbs, or even 200 lbs, and you had put it on the passenger floorboard where they seat used to be in anticipation of the 2007 rule, and someone protested you, I&#39;d be very disappointed.

[dj10]

they gave the passanger side but not till next year. [/b]

Oh my! I need to start reading more carefully. Naaaaaaaaa this is a Joke right?

That&#39;s the biggest pile of S&(# ! Why did they implement a SIR 5 months into the year and won&#39;t rule on something that make so much common sense until next damn year!!!??? Does anyone else see the irony in this??

Well I&#39;m over riding the CRB rule!!!!!!! Everyone is allowed right now to put weight as per the CRB ruling starting right now!!! Anyone who protests anyone for this will be shot, if the survive they will be shot again.
dj

[mlytle]

Ran it up the flagpole, LOL. Thank Stan Rider, CRB guy, who made the phone call that got it done.
[/b]

pretty sorry state of affairs that a phone call had to be made to make this happen...instead of someone at national actually proof reading the copy and making an immediate correction/statement/tech bulletin. especially given the heated focus this issue has had for the last 4 months. lame.

and completely agree with you dj...gotta wait till next year for simple ballast move rule change, but get a few weeks to implement a not-so-simple restrictor design. sheesh.

[Harry Balszac]

You guys are surprised by any of this?

Same ol&#39; same ol&#39; from this crew. Sigh..

Lather/Rinse/Repeat

[dj10]

You guys are surprised by any of this?

Same ol&#39; same ol&#39; from this crew. Sigh..

Lather/Rinse/Repeat
[/b]

Harry Dave,
Relax man, didn&#39;t you see where I over rode the CRB&#39;s ruling and I personally implemented the rule as of 3/31/06. So don&#39;t worry, if anyone protests you tell them to call ME @ 1.800. EAT. SHI&.

[Harry Balszac]

Harry Dave,
Relax man, didn&#39;t you see where I over rode the CRB&#39;s ruling and I personally implemented the rule as of 3/31/06. So don&#39;t worry, if anyone protests you tell them to call ME @ 1.800. EAT. SHI&.
[/b]

LMMFAO...I missed that. NEED MORE COFFEE !!!!

[Knestis]

... I voted against the weight when I thought they were going to stuff it all in the footwell. Since they gave us the passanger side for the weight, I admit I think I screwed the pooch. Oh well, won&#39;t be the 1st time or the last. [/b]

I&#39;m impressed with this statement.

It&#39;s a shame that the ballast rule and e36 re-spec process weren&#39;t handled in an integrated way. The "crew" HAD to have some motivation for making this situation so complicated and, if it were possible to understand those motivations, we&#39;d be at the real root of the current mess.

K

[Bill Miller]

I&#39;m impressed with this statement.

It&#39;s a shame that the ballast rule and e36 re-spec process weren&#39;t handled in an integrated way. The "crew" HAD to have some motivation for making this situation so complicated and, if it were possible to understand those motivations, we&#39;d be at the real root of the current mess.

K
[/b]

Boy, did you hit the nail on the head!

[DoubleXL240Z]

Sports
Car
Club of
Asia

[lateapex911]

Actually, I was suprised and disappointed by the ruling on the ballast.

My understanding, (and I say "understanding" becuse there has been a lot of accusations and slander here lately aimed a guys who have tried to repeat what they were told from other sources.)...

....is that the rule change was actually discussed long ago. But for some reason that I am unaware of, it never made it into fastrack.

I assume (again, don&#39;t shoot me, I&#39;m just the piano player) that it didn&#39;t make it thru the process far enough to have been voted on, and therefore it couldn&#39;t be handled as an errors and omissions deal.

So, it&#39;s a rulechange, not a clarification, and I guess that means that it has to wait until next year.

We tried, but sometimes the gears don&#39;t mesh as they should. Sucks.

(disclaimer for the conspiracy theorists: I wasn&#39;t in the process after it left the ITAC the second time, and I wasn&#39;t around the first time. I am merely looking at the situation, using what I have been told and making some logical conclusions. Don&#39;t take it to the bank, I&#39;m just trying to shed a little light.)

[mlytle]

well, at least bmwcca can move quickly to take advantage of the situation..this just posted to the bmw forums and boards by the bmwcca cr pres...


note, they even locked down the weight for its cars at 2850, no matter what scca does.
__________________________________________________ ________________________
I am happy to announce a mid-season rules change, as allowed by the BMW CCA Club Racing Rules Process.

Page 20, Section 2 "SCCA Classifications" Paragraph F currently reads:

Competitors choosing to compete under SCCA rules must comply with all
that series&#39; requirements (including restrictors, weight, etc).

As of Wednesday, April 3rd, this paragraph is changed to read:

Competitors choosing to compete under SCCA rules must comply
with all that series&#39; requirements, except that any and all
mandated intake restrictions (including restrictor plates,
SIR devices, etc) may be removed. Cars must be run at the
mandated SCCA IT weight, except for those cars which have
an ITS weight specified in the table of chassis weights.

Additionally, a line is added to the Appendix D "Official Vehicle Specifications" :

ITS BMW E36 325i/is 1992-1995 (2 & 4dr) 2850 lbs

Interpretation: This allows E36 BMW&#39;s running under the SCCA ITS rules to compete with us in the appropriate Prepared class at the specified weight without the SIR or other intake restrictor. If SCCA / IT decides to change their specified weight for this chassis, the weight required to run under CCA CR stays at the number listed in our rulebook.

Cars running under SCCA ITS rules must meet every other aspect of the SCCA GCR exactly (there is no mixing and matching between CR and ITS car preparation rules).

Drivers running ITS cars at our races must me the BMW CCA CR guidelines for personal safety gear (including HANS, etc).

If you have friends that race E36s in ITS, let them know that they can race their cars in BMW CR without the dreaded SIR (or any horrific weight increase).