April SIR ruling

[seckerich]

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' 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' 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'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).
[/b]

This makes sense for BMWCCA as your classes have been BALANCED for the different prep levels for just one make of car. Swimming in a different pond with SCCA--have to learn to play nice with all the children!!

[RSTPerformance]

shoot i don't know what SIR thread to post my question!!! 12 pages, hope someone actually gives the SIR a try... I think for me I would rather win with an SIR than just take a trophey without a challenge like years past for good drivers with decent preped cars.... IE: I hope someone out thier welcomes and wins the new challenge!!!

Raymond

[dj10]

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). [/b]

I'm happy for BMW Club Racing, with the exception of the manditory Hans there rulings are good IMO.
I do believe that you are looking at this one sided. The BMW Club is only racing BMW's. The SCCA is trying to keep many different manufactures equal. I want to race everything,..including rice grinders and if I'm not competitive with the SIR, I have other options.

[dj10]

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't shoot me, I'm just the piano player) that it didn't make it thru the process far enough to have been voted on, and therefore it couldn't be handled as an errors and omissions deal.

So, it'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't mesh as they should. Sucks.

(disclaimer for the conspiracy theorists: I wasn't in the process after it left the ITAC the second time, and I wasn't around the first time. I am merely looking at the situation, using what I have been told and making some logical conclusions. Don't take it to the bank, I'm just trying to shed a little light.) [/b]

Jake, I don't know who you are refering to about being slandered. If it is true, this is no way for adults to act. I will disagree big time with you about pushing the weight ruking pushed back to 2007. This is total nonsense, unless I'm missing something about rule making here. As I would think the Chairman of the CRB has the authority to implement any rule that was passed by the committee when ever he/ or she fills fit.

If the gears aren't meshing, it's time to fix the syncronizer!

[Andy Bettencourt]

While I agre that rule changes (in some instances) should be able to be made must more swiftly, I think this one is a moot point. I do not believe the CRB is considering anything but the SIR for the E36.

It is unfortunate, but I think the SIR is a one deal.

AB

[dj10]

While I agre that rule changes (in some instances) should be able to be made must more swiftly, I think this one is a moot point. I do not believe the CRB is considering anything but the SIR for the E36.

It is unfortunate, but I think the SIR is a one deal.

AB [/b]

This shouldn't be a moot point. The weight placement rule is a very good and a great common sense rule for the benefit of all makes, models and class. Please don't mess up what could help all that are involved. Enact this NOW. It's only a matter of typing a technical directive up and posting it. I agree AB, that some tech changes need not to be made quickly, maybe like the SIR, but when a change is needed quickly the ITAC, CRB & the CRB Chairman needs to act decisively. I have very recently found out how the ruling process works. I still believe the process has to change to effectively to make the CRB more efficient. If the BMW club can do it, the SCCA should be able to.

As much as I hate the thought of the SIR, I respect the CRB for making difficult decesion and stick by their guns. They are in a tought position dealing with all the manufactures and I bet right now they wished they only had 1 to deal with.

[JeffYoung]

And the result appears to me to be that most ITS BMWs are headed to JP. Not what the CRB intended I am sure, but the effect nonetheless.

[lateapex911]

Points of clarification. (Not aimed at you DJ, LOL)

1- The slandering I was referring to was made by certain posters here and on other forums, and aimed at members of the ITAC, and were based on the fact that the ITAC members -

A- Repeated what they were told by others higher up the food chain about certain SCCA policys or data,
or
B- Were involved in the eyes of the poster in ways that displeased them.

Since I am merely reporting what I think the situation is, I want to be clear that I am not stating anything as first person fact, as I just don't know, but rather aas a pretty well educated guess. and I won't tolerate any slandering becuase it was taken as fact. In other words, enough is enough...we're (ITAC guys) happy to try and clear things up, but we need to be treated fairly.

2- The weight "issue" I was referring to was the placement rule, not the weight vs the SIR.

3- The ITAC made it's opinion known to the CRB and has also made it's opinion known regarding the timing of the SIR implementation. Input has been recieved from the SCCA population, and if there is more that anyone feels needs to be said, I encourage them to submit it.

4- The PLACEMENT rule was what I referring to in my post, and I thought it was a done deal long ago, but evidently, it wasn't and needs to be handled by the book, it appears.

[dj10]

Points of clarification. (Not aimed at you DJ, LOL)

1- The slandering I was referring to was made by certain posters here and on other forums, and aimed at members of the ITAC, and were based on the fact that the ITAC members -

A- Repeated what they were told by others higher up the food chain about certain SCCA policys or data,
or
B- Were involved in the eyes of the poster in ways that displeased them.

Since I am merely reporting what I think the situation is, I want to be clear that I am not stating anything as first person fact, as I just don't know, but rather aas a pretty well educated guess. and I won't tolerate any slandering becuase it was taken as fact. In other words, enough is enough...we're (ITAC guys) happy to try and clear things up, but we need to be treated fairly.

2- The weight "issue" I was referring to was the placement rule, not the weight vs the SIR.

3- The ITAC made it's opinion known to the CRB and has also made it's opinion known regarding the timing of the SIR implementation. Input has been recieved from the SCCA population, and if there is more that anyone feels needs to be said, I encourage them to submit it.

4- The PLACEMENT rule was what I referring to in my post, and I thought it was a done deal long ago, but evidently, it wasn't and needs to be handled by the book, it appears. [/b]

You guys really need to be thick skinned. As far as the people makings such remarks, you just have to consider the source, this maybe be easier said than done. As far as the weight placement, I was told it had to go to the BoD, which it is why it takes so long. Hell, you might as well send it to the U.S. Senate! Times are changing and the SCCA better be able to change with the times.

I was also told that an extension of another month for the implementation of the SIR would have nothing to gain. Well........I think you are seeing part of this effect now and there may be more to come.

And the result appears to me to be that most ITS BMWs are headed to JP. Not what the CRB intended I am sure, but the effect nonetheless.

Ouch, what did SCCA do to Bill Alberlin at St. Pete's??!! They said with the 400 rpm drop and the weight Alberlin said forget it, it's not worth racing the BMW.

[DoubleD]

This makes sense for BMWCCA as your classes have been BALANCED for the different prep levels for just one make of car. Swimming in a different pond with SCCA--have to learn to play nice with all the children!!
[/b]

With many disparate models in each class...and we have accepted that some cars make better race cars than others at a given, equal level of prep. The only thing that differs in each class is the assigned weight and that weight is rock-solid steady.

[Bill Miller]

With many disparate models in each class...and we have accepted that some cars make better race cars than others at a given, equal level of prep. The only thing that differs in each class is the assigned weight and that weight is rock-solid steady.
[/b]

That may well be true DD, for cars built to BMWCCA class rules, but there are cars w/ different prep levels competing in the same class.

[Geo]

With many disparate models in each class...and we have accepted that some cars make better race cars than others at a given, equal level of prep. The only thing that differs in each class is the assigned weight and that weight is rock-solid steady.
[/b]

I'm sorry but this is just silliness. Weight must ALWAYS be considered in the equation. Classify one car at a buttload less weight and of course it will make a better race car than the others.

As far as the weight placement, I was told it had to go to the BoD, which it is why it takes so long. Hell, you might as well send it to the U.S. Senate! Times are changing and the SCCA better be able to change with the times.
[/b]

DJ, FWIW, certain types of changes can be approved directly by the CRB and implemented immediately. Others must be approved by the BOD. I am not as up on the nuances of this, but since I have no direct impact on making an official rule change, I don't have the need to know it in detail (IOW it's outside my scope so I haven't bothered commiting it all to memory).

As for BMWCCACR being more flexible, I believe the rules of governing this stuff is set in the by-laws of the club (SCCA). As such, they simply must be followed. If you think they should be changed, please, by all means write to the BOD. That is NOT meant to be smart-alek or snotty, just forthright.