April SIR ruling

[lateapex911]

Some simple history.

E36 makes too much power in a full build.

PCAs are implemented.

E36 is discussed by ITAC (and CR, weight is discussed, and the SIR is suggested. ITAC is interested, but recommends weight.

CRB decides on a 27mm as recommended by computer simulations or other modeling done by Raetech, one of three vendors.

The sizing is questioned, there is some discussion and it is decided that real world testing needs to be done.

Testing commences, in a number of locations with a number of different cars. Unfortunatley, one car isn't a valid data point as it's not running correctly and hasn't been broken in, and another never materializes. Which limits data points.

The results are discussed again, and while the ITAC again likes some aspects of the SIR, it recommends weight.

The CRB decides on the 29mm SIR, but moves the implementation date back a month.

Those are the highpoints.

[seckerich]

It is my understanding that the ITAC has recommended weight be added to the BMW for the last few years and each time has been shot down by the CRB with some other lame remedy. How is it then that you say they are the champion of the SIR? I don't know most of them personally that I am aware of, but I have always had straight answers to any questions. If you want to go with a lynch mob--a call to the CRB is the best start. This has been 3 years of BS that NONE of the ITAC should have had to deal with. Every time the CRB gets faced with the weight increase they trot out another well intentioned but useless fix. For some reason that I would really like to know they feel they just have to make an SIR work in SCCA. 3150 seems a little high for the Bimmer but it does need something. If you have the numbers to make it work just spec the D--- intake system and have them made at a fair price--no exceptions. Sure have no problem with spec tires and other items?? Should give same results and no questions on where it was mounted and less chance of defeat like the flat plate.

[RSTPerformance]

Not going to wast my time reading all of 1 days worth of posts that add up to 3 pages and 1,500 views of this whole nonsence

but I did want to show my support for Andy and others who have helped make a change where one was certainly needed. I will wait to judge if it was the best choice till after I see real results.

Congrats, and keep up the dedication to making IT and SCCA the best!!!

Thanks again;

Raymond "I wonder if some of those slow ITS BMW's will go back to BMW club?" Blethen

PS: Don't bother replying to my comments, I probably wont get them as I don't have enough time in the day/night to read through everything in this. Feel free to PM me sometime though

[lateapex911]

This has become a weird thread. Totally NOT like IT.com. Reading it has been like...well, in some ways a waste of time, but in others, a bit sickening. I feel as though I've had an out of body experience. But it left me with some questions.

Who are these guys who never posted before today? Why do they hate Andy?? He isn't the only ITAC member who posts, certainly he has a lot of patience...but why him??? Trust me, the SIR sure wasn't HIS idea, LOL.

Who ARE you guys?? Really...what do you drive?? Why the derisive comments? Why the rude behavior? The impossible demands?? In the big scheme of things, does anybody know what is REALLY going to happen? Are we rushing to judgement?
Can ONE guy influence an ADVISORY board of 9, which then influences a board of 7??

I'm also surprised at the total lack of big picture thinking here, and the short memory...just three years ago, you had to be friends or on a board to have half the info you now get on a daily basis from people who are in the process.

If you don't like the process, write a request for it to be changed. Sign your name, your member number and what you drive.

If you have a gripe or a charge against a member of any board, write a letter and ....you got it..sign your name.

[Matt Rowe]

Well this has gone beyond ridiculous.

To the ITAC members present, thank you for your effort in developing the process, reccomending weight as the first choice for the BMW and assisting with the testing on the SIR. I'm sorry the CRB choose to go with the SIR Option. But above all please stop arguing about this topic. Until ALL the dyno information that was collected on SIR testing has been released, or the mythical transcripts, there is no new information to put forth. Without new data this is just a shouting match and half of the opposition apparently doesn't even understand how the ITAC/CRB process works.

To the BMW community that feel persecuted by Andy, give it a rest. We can see you don't have any facts, in fact it's obvious you don't even understand how the ITAC and CRB function. What you have is one dyno plot for an engine that obviously was not fully tuned accorrding to the AFR included. There are other dyno plots out there, get them from the CRB and put them ALL out in the open and then they we can discuss if they show due diligence or a anti BMW bias. As for half truths and fears of bias in the ITAC, it would appear that no one outside of your small world sees the same thing. The current ITAC has made huge strides forward in transparency and accessibility. Oh, and in the process we now have some of the strongest and most diverse IT fields ever.

To the more reasonable BMW owners, thank you for your patience and understanding as the CRB tinkers with your cars. I'm sorry you've had to endure several "adjustments" but it would appear most of you can see the value in rebalancing the class even if the repeated adjustments are more than any IT racer should have to endure. Hopefully this last change will set things right and we can all get back to complaing about turn signal stalks and washer bottles.

To the CRB, please provide the SIR test data assembled on this issue so that we can see all of the data points. Please feel encouraged to also include the reasoning behind the decisions with the uncensored data.

To everyone, arguing back and forth based on one data point and half truths and conspiracy theories is pointless. Give it a rest and get the facts and data but for god's sake until then shut up.

And for the record, I don't even race ITS so the only dog I have in this hunt is to make sure the progress being made in IT continues.

[Geo]

Well this has gone beyond ridiculous.

To the ITAC members present, thank you for your effort in developing the process, reccomending weight as the first choice for the BMW and assisting with the testing on the SIR. I'm sorry the CRB choose to go with the SIR Option. But above all please stop arguing about this topic. Until ALL the dyno information that was collected on SIR testing has been released, or the mythical transcripts, there is no new information to put forth. Without new data this is just a shouting match and half of the opposition apparently doesn't even understand how the ITAC/CRB process works.
[/b]

You're right Matt.

I'm done here.

[Bill Miller]

Well this has gone beyond ridiculous.

To the ITAC members present, thank you for your effort in developing the process, reccomending weight as the first choice for the BMW and assisting with the testing on the SIR. I'm sorry the CRB choose to go with the SIR Option. But above all please stop arguing about this topic. Until ALL the dyno information that was collected on SIR testing has been released, or the mythical transcripts, there is no new information to put forth. Without new data this is just a shouting match and half of the opposition apparently doesn't even understand how the ITAC/CRB process works.

To the BMW community that feel persecuted by Andy, give it a rest. We can see you don't have any facts, in fact it's obvious you don't even understand how the ITAC and CRB function. What you have is one dyno plot for an engine that obviously was not fully tuned accorrding to the AFR included. There are other dyno plots out there, get them from the CRB and put them ALL out in the open and then they we can discuss if they show due diligence or a anti BMW bias. As for half truths and fears of bias in the ITAC, it would appear that no one outside of your small world sees the same thing. The current ITAC has made huge strides forward in transparency and accessibility. Oh, and in the process we now have some of the strongest and most diverse IT fields ever.

To the more reasonable BMW owners, thank you for your patience and understanding as the CRB tinkers with your cars. I'm sorry you've had to endure several "adjustments" but it would appear most of you can see the value in rebalancing the class even if the repeated adjustments are more than any IT racer should have to endure. Hopefully this last change will set things right and we can all get back to complaing about turn signal stalks and washer bottles.

To the CRB, please provide the SIR test data assembled on this issue so that we can see all of the data points. Please feel encouraged to also include the reasoning behind the decisions with the uncensored data.

To everyone, arguing back and forth based on one data point and half truths and conspiracy theories is pointless. Give it a rest and get the facts and data but for god's sake until then shut up.

And for the record, I don't even race ITS so the only dog I have in this hunt is to make sure the progress being made in IT continues.
[/b]

Very well said Matt!

Andy (and others), guys like Ball Sack and Double D aren't worth the effort that you've expended responding to them.

[Bob Dowie]

Gentleman,

The ITAC members are doing a good job answering your questions and I'll be making a more detailed post to better explain our position on this. But the simple answer is we (the CR had a choice of adding a lot of weight or restricting the power. Since the car was already classed and there were no reports that the current weight couldn't be reached and believing that cars of similer weight make for better racing. We went with the restrictor.

The SIR was chosen over a much smaller flat plate for a couple of reasons but mostly to maintain the drivability and throttle response that makes a good race car. The current 29mm size pulls approximately 20 HP off the peak, bringing the E-36 within the classification proccess in use today.

There is no intention to make the E36 an uncompetive or undesirable race car. The only goal is to get this car classed where we can congratulate the BMW racers for a job well done without the under tone that their success is a result of a favorable classification instead of the hard work and skill of the team and driver.

Thanks, Bob

[seckerich]

Gentleman,

The ITAC members are doing a good job answering your questions and I'll be making a more detailed post to better explain our position on this. But the simple answer is we (the CR had a choice of adding a lot of weight or restricting the power. Since the car was already classed and there were no reports that the current weight couldn't be reached and believing that cars of similer weight make for better racing. We went with the restrictor.

The SIR was chosen over a much smaller flat plate for a couple of reasons but mostly to maintain the drivability and throttle response that makes a good race car. The current 29mm size pulls approximately 20 HP off the peak, bringing the E-36 within the classification proccess in use today.

There is no intention to make the E36 an uncompetive or undesirable race car. The only goal is to get this car classed where we can congratulate the BMW racers for a job well done without the under tone that their success is a result of a favorable classification instead of the hard work and skill of the team and driver.

Thanks, Bob
[/b]

Thanks for taking the time to clear that up. Good to see the CRB stand behind THEIR decision-even if we disagree.

[dj10]

Gentleman,
The SIR was chosen over a much smaller flat plate for a couple of reasons but mostly to maintain the drivability and throttle response that makes a good race car. The current 29mm size pulls approximately 20 HP off the peak, bringing the E-36 within the classification proccess in use today.

There is no intention to make the E36 an uncompetive or undesirable race car. The only goal is to get this car classed where we can congratulate the BMW racers for a job well done without the under tone that their success is a result of a favorable classification instead of the hard work and skill of the team and driver.

Thanks, Bob
[/b]

I would like anyone from the ITAC to answer 1 question. What would happen if the enacted 29 mm SIR is found to make the BMW's uncompetive? I don't mean to muddy the water any more than it is but I believe everyone needs to know this.
Thanks

[lateapex911]

I would like anyone from the ITAC to answer 1 question. What would happen if the enacted 29 mm SIR is found to make the BMW's uncompetive? I don't mean to muddy the water any more than it is but I believe everyone needs to know this.
Thanks
[/b]

Since we can all see what happens when we try to be up front and communicative, I will try to answer this in the best way, but as I am not the boss, I can not PROMISE ANYTHING....

(Nor have I in the past, but thats another story)

In my discussions with CRB members, they have indicated along these lines.."If it's wrong, we'll fix it"
(My response, at the time was: "I don't want it wrong. This is the last time I want to be adjusting this car, enough is enough. Whatever we do, it needs to be right")

Now, you said "uncompetitive".

I would respond by stating that if emprical evidence comes to light that is scientifically sound, that shows the car is not meeting the design goal, then the situation would be looked at, and if the offset is great enough, a change will be made.

I think Bob stated it well.

[Joe Harlan]

I would like anyone from the ITAC to answer 1 question. What would happen if the enacted 29 mm SIR is found to make the BMW's uncompetive? I don't mean to muddy the water any more than it is but I believe everyone needs to know this.
Thanks
[/b]

DJ, To be honest with you I am convinced it is not enough. The 27 was well inside the target range and a 29 will not restrict the car to the point that it fits the formula. One only has to look at the one Dyno sheet posted here to see a poorly tuned car was tested to be able to present a failure by those that don't like the technology. Look closely at the jagged dyno graph and compare it to the fuel curve. Looks like the knock sensor was doing its job not to blow this thing up. Put some fuel in that motor and it's a whole new ball game.
So My opinion is the Bimmer caught a break and we will still see them at the pointy end of the front.

[dj10]

DJ, To be honest with you I am convinced it is not enough. The 27 was well inside the target range and a 29 will not restrict the car to the point that it fits the formula. One only has to look at the one Dyno sheet posted here to see a poorly tuned car was tested to be able to present a failure by those that don't like the technology. Look closely at the jagged dyno graph and compare it to the fuel curve. Looks like the knock sensor was doing its job not to blow this thing up. Put some fuel in that motor and it's a whole new ball game.
So My opinion is the Bimmer caught a break and we will still see them at the pointy end of the front. [/b]

Joe, I'll be testing a freshly built 2.5 L engine within the next 3 weeks and I have a adjust. fuel reg. There were a lot of ? with that engine. If Dave Finch DID say to mount the SIR in front of the AFM?? Why hasn't any got it to work?

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, I'll be testing a freshly built 2.5 L engine within the next 3 weeks and I have a adjust. fuel reg. There were a lot of ? with that engine. If Dave Finch DID say to mount the SIR in front of the AFM?? Why hasn't any got it to work?
[/b]

In front? Between the MAF and the TB is where this thing needs to go. I don't think you can get it far enough away from the the MAF to no screw up the signal. On a side note DJ you are welcome to Email me a phone number and any help or advice I can offer is yours for the asking.

[Joe Harlan]

Gentleman,

The ITAC members are doing a good job answering your questions and I'll be making a more detailed post to better explain our position on this. But the simple answer is we (the CR had a choice of adding a lot of weight or restricting the power. Since the car was already classed and there were no reports that the current weight couldn't be reached and believing that cars of similer weight make for better racing. We went with the restrictor.
The SIR was chosen over a much smaller flat plate for a couple of reasons but mostly to maintain the drivability and throttle response that makes a good race car. The current 29mm size pulls approximately 20 HP off the peak, bringing the E-36 within the classification proccess in use today.

There is no intention to make the E36 an uncompetive or undesirable race car. The only goal is to get this car classed where we can congratulate the BMW racers for a job well done without the under tone that their success is a result of a favorable classification instead of the hard work and skill of the team and driver.

Thanks, Bob
[/b]

Guys This is back on about page 8....WTH ARE YOU STILL FIGHTING ABOUT IT. It ain't gonna change you can offer up all kinds of counter solutions that have very little meaning but the rules change is done. Get over it.

I must also ask Mr. Scott. DO you currently or have you ever raced a fully developed ITS E36 in SCCA clubracing?

[Harry Balszac]

Andy, my last post was to Bob. I hope he does the right thing.

[DoubleXL240Z]

I have some questions!!! First, and most imprtantly, I'm not here to flame/stab/accuse/ convict etc. anyone of anything!! I've been around scca/hsr/svra/pca as a mech. and fabricator for about 6 years and racing in general since the 80s on a trans am team. And most (read all) of the nonsense i have read on this forum or the BW forum has been a real turnoff.
I believe the goal was approx. 160 to 165hp, I'm not sure on this. Maybe 180. The only released(so Far) info has a 181 hp motor detuned or limited to 161 hp by a SIR. It is my understanding that the concept of a SIR is to limit air thus limiting hp. An engine basically being an air pump, limit air= limit hp. Now I realize that the A/F mixture was off by a considerable margin on the dyno graph. But, proper tuning may bring back 5-10hp. Bringin us back to 170ish. This doesn't quite add up though. In theory, X amount of air= X HP, and Y amount of air=Y HP. So with that being the case logic would dictate a 200hp( just a number) engine would be limited to the same 170 area.
Why, than wouldn't a number of approx.190-195 be the goal of the SIR. If a 2680 lb. RX7(fully developed) is pushing the 183-185HP envelope wouldn't simple math dictate a 2850 lb. at the same tune level be expected to produce in the 195 area. The RX numbers are dyno sheets I have seen by the way. Maybe I'm missing something.
As far as my stake in this is the fact that I am/was in the process of buying a E36 for conversion to a racecar. Iam supposed to pick up the car this weekend.
I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but it does not addup.
Andy, I truly appreciate your work, and everybody's work on this. But, I think you can understand most everyone frustration on this, and you have acknowleged that.
Maybe the jokes I hear about The SCCA( sports car club of asia) from the svra and hsr crowd are not that far off.
Sorry about that I'm getting riled up. I'm out!!

[steve s]

don't know why all the non mazdas guys are complaining.can't you read between the lines.
that's why there's bmwcca did you ever hear of mazda club ?????.
when you sell that bmw buy a mazda and continue winning with SCCA.
p.s. that's why i drive a mazda
this is too easy i'm sounding like those immature posters on this site !!!!

[Harry Balszac]

Mmm-kay, Steve. Whatever.

My point WRT the Stickley motor was obviously lost in translation, so here it is again:

The SIR was promised NOT to have ANY detrimental effect on motors not making (IIRC) 210hp unrestricted.

This has been proven a lie.

Bill's starting HP is irrelevant, except it proves the lie.

And, instead of scrapping this whole suspect process, and the resultant decision-du-jour, and starting over--which is what fair, rational, unbiased people would do--SCCA has chosen to bury its collective head in the sand & say "our way or the highway" while they blame Raetech for their own....performance.

I, frankly, don't care whether Bill got a good or bad motor. I do, however, care that he lost 20hp in a circumstance that ITAC & CRB promised would NOT happen.

Am I being more clear now?

[lateapex911]

Mmm-kay, Steve. Whatever.

My point WRT the Stickley motor was obviously lost in translation, so here it is again:

The SIR was promised NOT to have ANY detrimental effect on motors not making (IIRC) 210hp unrestricted.[/b]

Uh, no. As the 'prosecuter' in this case (that's what you're acting like, and as if a President commited treason, LOL) it's your job to provide proof of your claims. I don't have, nor wish to waste my life searching through old quotes to set you straight. But if you're going to spout this stuff, be accurate at least.
Fact: 210? 210what??? crank? wheel? Since we have been discusssing wheel here I'll go with that. The sum of our statements is that we said we were told (like I am a flow dynamics engineer and have a ProE or whatever other flow modeling work station, LOL) that the SIR wouldn't affect torque or HP below it's design level. Nobody ever stated that the design level was 210. Why bother? That's at or just over where the top dogs are now....no need to restrict everyone to power nobody is making, right?

And, instead of scrapping this whole suspect process, and the resultant decision-du-jour and starting over--which is what fair, rational, unbiased people would do--SCCA has chosen to bury its collective head in the sand & say "our way or the highway" while they blame Raetech for their own....performance.

I, frankly, don't care whether Bill got a good or bad motor. I do, however, care that he lost 20hp in a circumstance that ITAC & CRB promised would NOT happen.

Am I being more clear now?
[/b]

So, would you rather he, and all the BMW guys who have poor running motors, or who haven't made improvements to reach the higher HP levels that are possible, get a freebie? Why are the BMW drivers more entitled than the rest of the IT category? Why aren't the guys who can't afford to build a top NX2000 or Neon motor entitled to a freebie??

Those are the questions I get in my PM....from guys who don't want to get abused by posting in this thread.

Nobody has denied that the SIR has not lived up to all it's "selling points". But there are plenty of wise people here who feel that the "selling points" (ie, the supposed transparency to non built motors) wasn't a good thing at all! It was a huge detractor!

As it sits, THAT is what all the complaining has been about here.(And a bunch of procedural stuff, I'll get to that later)

The complaint isn't that 20 hp is trimmed of the top runners. The complain is that 19hp has been trimmed off a car that isn't broken in and was running deangerously lean.

I guarantee you that the guys in ITA who just bolted in over 100 pounds....and haven't even begun to build their CRXs or 240 SX's are looking at that and saying "SO?".