April SIR ruling

[Knestis]

...and not surprisingly, people are still PO'd.

I'd of gone with lead, instead. e36 entrants would still be upset but there would be fewer side issues, red herrings, confusion, and distractions to deal with; and the math would be simpler to defend.

K

[Singletrack1]

...and not surprisingly, people are still PO'd.

I'd of gone with lead, instead. e36 entrants would still be upset but there would be fewer side issues, red herrings, confusion, and distractions to deal with; and the math would be simpler to defend.

K
[/b]

If they would only publish the Math.

I'm interested in the actual formula, not the end result. If the formula is fair and legit, why not publish it?

Bill

[seckerich]

...and not surprisingly, people are still PO'd.

I'd of gone with lead, instead. e36 entrants would still be upset but there would be fewer side issues, red herrings, confusion, and distractions to deal with; and the math would be simpler to defend.

K
[/b]

AMEN brother and much easier to fix if it went too far. We all want even racing--not kill a class.

[stevel]

Yes, I did get the track record by .1 second, but I thought track records didn't matter?
[/b]

I'm sure they matter to someone. But it's a great example of how a sub par effort (not saying your whole effort is sub par but with 180whp it's certainly not all it could be) in a car that weighs 300lbs less than it should can still break track records. If that doesn't tell you that you didn't have an advantage then there's no convincing you.

s

[buldogge]

but Andy... The bottom line is...I though we were limiting output to 180 rwhp...??? Are you contending that he will, by re-tune, (not supposed to be necessary with the magical SIR) get 180 rwhp???

Originally...post after post stated that the not-full-effort cars...ie those with 180 rwhp "would not be affected"...what we are seeing here is that one of these aforementioned cars IS being affected to the tune of 20 rwhp by the invisible SIR.

And that in itself sums you up.



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?
[/b]

[Andy Bettencourt]

That is in direct contradiction to what David Finch told me when I told him about my dyno results. He stated it has to be in FRONT of the HFM to make the full 180HP. When I told him about my car and the other car not running past 3k with it behind the HFM, he stated we need to do more development.[/b]

Then so be it. Maybe we need to define 'in front of'. The SIR's do not work directly in front of the HFM. That is the air filter side. They have made the power after the HFM but before the throttle body.

Why can't the CRB tell us how they got the car to run 180HP with the SIR in front of the HFM and give us the results of this final test where they tested SIR's up to 33mm?[/b]

To correct you, they tested up to a 35mm - which lost all of 3-5hp. Again - there should be a summary coming out. NO test yeilded 180whp with the SIR in front of the HFM as defined by the above comments. After the HFM but well before the TB.

This is in direct contradiction to what the ITAC and CRB told us the effect of the SIR would be. I can quote your post and others that state that the SIR only caps HP and it should not have affected my 180HP baseline.[/b]

That has been stated earlier in this thread. There were items that were not 'as sold' to the CRB by Finch. The resultant effect on all cars was a data point the CRB had to weigh when deciding the outcome.

So, the story changes - it went from "unless you have a full build making 200+HP, you won't be affected" to "YOU MUST DO A FULL BUILD INCLUDING MOTEC TO GET THE TAGETED 180HP".[/b]

Unfortunately, yes. But I will say that if you want to be at the peak of the power to weight ratio of the class, you have to do that anyway. If you do the 100% build, you are in the same position as everyone else...same target pw/weight at 2850.

It doesn't matter to me in the end as I will be moving on to NASA and BMWCCA. You guys can accuse me of taking my ball and going home and so be it. But, I can say I got kicked in the nuts and decided it was better to go home, than continue to get kicked in the nuts. I have no interest in fighting for position with drivers that I should be dominating.[/b]

I understand.

Yes, I did get the track record by .1 second, but I thought track records didn't matter? [/b]

Especially when you are 25whp down from where you COULD be.

What formula do you want published - the 'process' for weight has been hashed over a hundred times, the SIR stuff is for engineers - the END RESULT IS the point.

[Singletrack1]

I'm sure they matter to someone. But it's a great example of how a sub par effort (not saying your whole effort is sub par but with 180whp it's certainly not all it could be) in a car that weighs 300lbs less than it should can still break track records. If that doesn't tell you that you didn't have an advantage then there's no convincing you.

s
[/b]

But you are assuming the person who set the previous record had a full out effort in a 100% driver.

It also assumes driver is not a large factor.

If I add 300# and still get the track record against a 100% effort by a RX-7 or 240Z, then you can say that the BMW had an advantage. That is not the case and I can assure you that the previous holder's car isn't a 100% or a 100% driver.

I don't see how using your logic can get to your conclusion that my car has an advantage.

You are accepting a conclusion without the supporting facts.

[JeffYoung]

Bill, it's been published here many times. It basically shoots for a 14:1 to power to weight ratio using the stock hp figure plus an adjustment for expected improvements in IT trim. Then, intangibles are used as adders/deducts from the weight (IRS v. live rear, discs v. drums, aero, etc.).

As Jake, George, Andy and others have presented it, it seems to make sense to me although it is probably not as "mathematical" as those on the short end (or perceived short end) of it would like.

One other point, and maybe I shouldn't make this one, but I think the ITAC majority (including your scapegoat) was firmly behind using weight as the fix, not the SIR. So, for me at least, a lot of the whining directed at the "scapegoat" is pretty damn offensive.

I promised myself I wouldn't post on this issue again, but here I am. Let me say this: I think SIRs suck, I think they have no place in IT, I think you guys (BMW guys) got screwed on the timing of this, I think that extraordinary efforts were made to test the SIR but things still didn't come out in a completely logical way and most of all I think that you guys were made to feel like a target by the whole process.

That said, any objective (as objective as the process can be) look at your cars (the E36) considering stock hp, known dyno plots for built motors, brakes, and suspension shows that 2850 at 205 whp is too light.

Can one of you guys justify the 2850 weight without reference to this years ARRC or the RX7 that pulled you by 4 car lengths over a 1/4 at Lefty Righty International Raceway at 3:32 p.m. on May 4, 2005? Stick to stock hp, IT gains, dyno plots and power to weight ratios.

Jeff

[stevel]

LOL. Do you or do you not make money on ITS RX7's?

[/b]

Nope he doesn't. And if FOM was his livelyhood he'd be in the poor house. (No offense AB, I just know the dayjob pays the bills and FOM is a venture far from self sustaining). Man, I can't believe the personal attacks on this issue! It seems the majority are people that aren't actually racers (thank god as most anyone that I have met at the track one on one has been great to know). Are you a regular over on bimmerforums too? The personal things they're saying over there is just absolute filth and I hope to god I never come face to face with some of them. But I digress.

AB is one of the most stand up guys I have ever met. Always on the straight and narrow, won't BS you and is always looking to have a level playing field. I don't know WHY you can't understand he is but ONE person in this whole thing. 1 out of many (i dunno, 10 or so ITAC) that RECOMMENDS to the CRB. How can he be such an influencing factor? Answer, he isn't. So stop all the petty 2 year old crap. He doesn't make money on RX7's. They don't sell them and they don't even build them! Stop making assumptions about something you have NO IDEA about.

It pains me to think that someday some of these people making these personal attacks are in the car next to me on the track. If I ever put IT.com name to face I can't wait to meet you!

If you've got a problem with what's going on in regards to rules, tell the SCCA, CRB, etc. Don't bitch on here. DO something about it!

s

[Andy Bettencourt]

but Andy... The bottom line is...I though we were limiting output to 180 rwhp...??? Are you contending that he will, by re-tune, (not supposed to be necessary with the magical SIR) get 180 rwhp???

Originally...post after post stated that the not-full-effort cars...ie those with 180 rwhp "would not be affected"...what we are seeing here is that one of these aforementioned cars IS being affected to the tune of 20 rwhp by the invisible SIR.

[/b]

I am not contending anything. I have said this now, what, 3 times...the SIR did NOT work as billed from Raetech on that front. This error - and it's effect on under-prepped cars WAS a factor in the decision making process of the CRB.

Proponents of the SIR will be quick to point out that going to 3200lbs on a 180whp effort (when 205-210 is out there) would have an equally devistating effect. To which those who have spent the money to get to 'full-prep' would tell you to bend someone elses ear as that is what it takes to run up front.

AB

[dj10]

That is in direct contradiction to what David Finch told me when I told him about my dyno results. He stated it has to be in FRONT of the HFM to make the full 180HP. When I told him about my car and the other car not running past 3k with it behind the HFM, he stated we need to do more development.

This is in direct contradiction to what the ITAC and CRB told us the effect of the SIR would be. I can quote your post and others that state that the SIR only caps HP and it should not have affected my 180HP baseline.

Yes, my car was lean and it has since been corrected.
Bill Kim
[/b]

Bill, I will not dispute Dave. He know's way more than I'll ever know. Maybe Jake can help us out here, he was at some of the tests? The way it was explained to me, that the AFM needed uninterupted air to be effective, that is why the SIR was placed after the AFM and between the TB. I would imagine the C & G Performance will be talking to Dave Finch when they order my SIR. I would like to hear from anyone with actual knowledge of these SIR's and their placement. I had also heard some time ago that unfortunately like the FPR it would effect all level of preped cars, but so would have the weight too.
Bill did you Dyno your car after you richened it up? If so what were the results?

[Singletrack1]

What formula do you want published - the 'process' for weight has been hashed over a hundred times, the SIR stuff is for engineers - the END RESULT IS the point.
[/b]

If you can publish the "process" in simple terms such as "weight * X /Y + Z = HP", that would be helpful. And some explaination of where X, Y, Z came from.

I think a simple summary would be helpful as it helps to see where new cars may go in terms of weight.

Thanks,

Bill

[Fastfred92]

And just because AB thinks I am a smart ass I want to thank Steve E. for once again validating why we should not use race or track results....... Steve's underdog RX7 hung a lap this weekend within a couple tenths of the track record at VIR. For those who dont know, VIR is a very HP oriented track and the record is held by that villainous Chet guy in a UNRESTRICTED e36. Not sure if you classify Steve's car as a 100% build either.... but several RX7's were hovering in the 2:14's and even a Z found itself down in that range. But I am sure the BMW was sandbagging a few years ago. It's the process, I know.........

[Singletrack1]

Bill, I will not dispute Dave. He know's way more than I'll ever know. Maybe Jake can help us out here, he was at some of the tests? The way it was explained to me, that the AFM needed uninterupted air to be effective, that is why the SIR was placed after the AFM and between the TB. I would imagine the C & G Performance will be talking to Dave Finch when they order my SIR. I would like to hear from anyone with actual knowledge of these SIR's and their placement. I had also heard some time ago that unfortunately like the FPR it would effect all level of preped cars, but so would have the weight too.
Bill did you Dyno your car after you richened it up? If so what were the results?
[/b]

I edited my original post to make it more clear.

1. My car and the other did not run at all past 3K RPM with the SIR in front of the HFM
2. The dyno runs on my car was done with the SIR after the HFM and in front of the throttle body.
3. When I pointed out this to David Finch, he stated the SIR need to be in FRONT of the HFM and that was the last dyno they did at 180HP with the 29mm SIR. When I pointed out my low dyno results, he attributed it to the placement of the SIR after the HFM, not that I needed to start with a motor with more HP.
4. He also claimed the ITAC/CRB did not listen to him and that he did not recommend the 27mm size.

I will have the dyno results with the richer fuel map soon. I am waiting to finish some other parts to test at the same time and that is why I haven't retested it yet.

My 27mm Raetech SIR is for sale in the classified section - Raetech said they will replace it with a 29mm for free.


Bill

[Andy Bettencourt]

If you can publish the "process" in simple terms such as "weight * X /Y + Z = HP", that would be helpful. And some explaination of where X, Y, Z came from.

I think a simple summary would be helpful as it helps to see where new cars may go in terms of weight.

Thanks,

Bill [/b]

Bill,

You will find it in detail in the rediculous thread on Bimmerforums. Post 101.

You miss that? You are one of the guys that took the most swings at me personally on that site. Thanks for paying attention.

And just because AB thinks I am a smart ass I want to thank Steve E. for once again validating why we should not use race or track results....... Steve's underdog RX7 hung a lap this weekend within a couple tenths of the track record at VIR. For those who dont know, VIR is a very HP oriented track and the record is held by that villainous Chet guy in a UNRESTRICTED e36. Not sure if you classify Steve's car as a 100% build either.... but several RX7's were hovering in the 2:14's and even a Z found itself down in that range. But I am sure the BMW was sandbagging a few years ago. It's the process, I know......... [/b]

Care to mention that Chet's car did that in the heat of the summer when all the other cars were running 4 seconds slower? Think the air-temp had anything to do with power this weekend? I can spin the data as fast as you can.



Why can't you accept that it IS about the numbers?

[dj10]

I edited my original post to make it more clear.

1. My car and the other did not run at all past 3K RPM with the SIR in front of the HFM
2. The dyno runs on my car was done with the SIR after the HFM and in front of the throttle body.
3. When I pointed out this to David Finch, he stated the SIR need to be in FRONT of the HFM and that was the last dyno they did at 180HP with the 29mm SIR. When I pointed out my low dyno results, he attributed it to the placement of the SIR after the HFM, not that I needed to start with a motor with more HP.
4. He also claimed the ITAC/CRB did not listen to him and that he did not recommend the 27mm size.

I will have the dyno results with the richer fuel map soon. I am waiting to finish some other parts to test at the same time and that is why I haven't retested it yet.

My 27mm Raetech SIR is for sale in the classified section - Raetech said they will replace it with a 29mm for free.

Bill [/b]

I guess he didn't tell you exactely where to put it, like how close to the AFM or HFM or how close to the air filter it needs to be?
Thanks

[Bill Miller]

Hey, its your decision to post here instead of posting a profit.

Maybe you should see if "flatout-motorsports.ORG" is taken.

RX3SP
[/b]

You sir, are a cowardly tool!

That is in direct contradiction to what David Finch told me when I told him about my dyno results. He stated it has to be in FRONT of the HFM to make the full 180HP. When I told him about my car and the other car not running past 3k with it in front of the HFM, he stated we need to do more development.[/b]

That, more than anything else I've read about SIR's, just screams of BS.


"DoubleD", I'm w/ Steve on this one, IT really doesn't need people like you.

[seckerich]

And just because AB thinks I am a smart ass I want to thank Steve E. for once again validating why we should not use race or track results....... Steve's underdog RX7 hung a lap this weekend within a couple tenths of the track record at VIR. For those who dont know, VIR is a very HP oriented track and the record is held by that villainous Chet guy in a UNRESTRICTED e36. Not sure if you classify Steve's car as a 100% build either.... but several RX7's were hovering in the 2:14's and even a Z found itself down in that range. But I am sure the BMW was sandbagging a few years ago. It's the process, I know.........
[/b]

Chet went 2:12 as did York--Get it right before you post bad info. I have the sheet from 2004 qual. at MARRS/SARRC to prove it. We now have 2 generation better Hoosiers as well. And yes I am 99.98 % prep. You have to back it up in the race to get the track record which is much harder with someone inside you every corner. I was .4 off my Qual. time with Kent Thompson under me every lap. Oh yea--He is 99.99% if you need to ask.

[Singletrack1]

Bill,

You will find it in detail in the rediculous thread on Bimmerforums. Post 101.

You miss that? You are one of the guys that took the most swings at me personally on that site. Thanks for paying attention.


[/b]

I'm not sure why you are bringing that back up. I think I have been civil and polite here.

I have made a simple request and you have now it turns ugly.

I believe there were pleny of mud thrown on both sides, but again, why bring it up now, rather than answering my question?

Who has now made it personal?

Show me where on this current thread have I said anything personal about anyone.

It seems you resort to personal attacks when unable to answer tough questions.

I just want to see the numbers. I want to see all the numbers so I can see for myself whether it makes sense or not. If it makes perfect sense as the ITAC says, why not publish the "formula" in the GCR?

Why can't we see weight + X * Y = HP? And, what X & Y mean so we can take another hypothetical car and get the weight for it? And, to verify the weight for all the cars in IT?

Any person that blindly believes the end numbers without seeing how it got there is a person who goes through life as a sucker. Do you just sign at the dotted line when buying a car? Or a house? You want to see all the numbers yourself for errors or other issues.

You are demanding that we accept the end number without any explaination. I find that rather humerous as I don't think you got to the position in your life by accepting other's conclusions blindly. If so, I got some hot stock for you.

I want to see for myself how the ITAC got from 2850 to 3150. Again, if the process is so "fair", why the personal attack, rather than a simple answer? Can you humor us and just give the absolute formula and numbers once more? I promise I will go away after I get an answer to this question.

If the "formula" has fudge factors, that is fine, but it should be defined, rather than ad hoc per car. If there is ad hoc assignment of fudge factors per car, that isn't a formula. That is ad hoc assignment of weight.

If that is the case, other people running in IT should be very concerned as the formula is nothing more than a sham for for ad hoc weight assignment with no basis.

Bill

[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.