April SIR ruling

[Andy Bettencourt]

Harry Balszac[/b]

Say the name outloud. As amusing as his facts.

Just another guy hiding behind a fake name who joined today.

[stevel]

Wow, you sure sound all butch & tough. LOL.

Come on, man, grow up.

I said that many think that there is an appearance of favoritism related to his side business. This is 100% true. I made NO accusations.

Perhaps you should do a little introspection as to why you are so over-reacting and offensively brittle?
[/b]

A guy with a name of Harry Balszac telling me to grow up. Irony at it's best. Come on out from hiding and tell us your real name and give some sort of credibility to yourself.

Once again you're saying things without knowing anything about what you're talking about. Not trying to sound all "butch and tough" (whatever that means) but I just said if you say something know the facts first. That's basically all I said. I didn't say it in the nicest way, but tit for tat I don't think it was out of line.

Over-reacting? I'm just looking out for a friend. I don't call that over-reacting at all. And I certainly haven't taken any personal shots at anyone else while doing so. If I was over-reacting it would be obvious. And you're far from offending me. 2 minutes from now I'll forget all about this and go on with my life. I just wanted to stick up for a person that has taken way too much heat for something that involved so many other people's input and decisions. He was but a small part of the this entire decision. Again, something you and others seemed to have missed.

s

[buldogge]

I don't really know how they would feel...but...regardless...that's not how the SIR was "sold" to the members here.

Bummer...Seems to me that the ITAC/CRB's work is not truly "done".

Funny how everyone here is against MOTEC when the subject comes up...but...they fully support a system by which MOTEC becomes required to run (a restricted no less) rwhp for the BMW!

Just like in all the other classes, the underprepared will be slower. Funny, how would the big $$$ guys feel if their efforts were marginalized to 180whp and then a low $$$ guys comes in at 180whp and is 'invisible'?
[/b]

[stevel]

...

[e36its]

If you can't come to grips with that and look at the data, then so be it.[/b]

Can we separate out the issues? Outside of any appearance-of-impropriety issues, I really want to look at the data (or rather, have people smarter than me look at the data). So far we've got one data point submitted by the car owner -- a data point which (some say) might have issues that render it not illustrative. Please, for the love of all that is holy, somebody get us some data!

The fact remains that the technology does not work 100% as advertised by Finch, no matter the size. There is no size that gets everyone to the magic number.[/b]

So the technology isn't all that we thought it would be. I thought (based on posts here) that it would be
1) invisible until its choke point
2) cut off power at an absolute point
3) not require tuning.

It appears that #1 is not true, and that #3 may not be true (the dyno chart posted was leaner than the no-SIR chart). #2 seems to be untrue as well, as it responds differently on different motors. Given that, does the SIR really buy us anything for the complication and controversy? Or is a really expensive FPR with installation issues?

tom

[Harry Balszac]

Say the name outloud. As amusing as his facts.

Just another guy hiding behind a fake name who joined today.


[/b]

Wow. Is that the best you have?

Sheesh, and I thought we could avoid personal attacks in this thread.

The fact that I use an amusing screen name, and that I joined today, is 100% irrelevant....but I guess it give you cover to avoid the points I raised, eh?

FYI, my name is David Scott. But I am not sure what difference that makes to the points I, and others, have raised.

A guy with a name of Harry Balszac telling me to grow up. Irony at it's best. Come on out from hiding and tell us your real name and give some sort of credibility to yourself.

Once again you're saying things without knowing anything about what you're talking about. Not trying to sound all "butch and tough" (whatever that means) but I just said if you say something know the facts first. That's basically all I said. I didn't say it in the nicest way, but tit for tat I don't think it was out of line.

Over-reacting? I'm just looking out for a friend. I don't call that over-reacting at all. And I certainly haven't taken any personal shots at anyone else while doing so. If I was over-reacting it would be obvious. And you're far from offending me. 2 minutes from now I'll forget all about this and go on with my life. I just wanted to stick up for a person that has taken way too much heat for something that involved so many other people's input and decisions. He was but a small part of the this entire decision. Again, something you and others seemed to have missed.

s
[/b]

As I just posted, my name is David Scott. Now that we have that behind us, please share with the group how on Earth my real name is (1) relevant or (2) imbues me with any more or less credibility?

As for the rest of your points, fine. I can appreciate sticking up for a friend. However, you should have advised your friend to remove himself from this entire matter in the beginning due to the appearance of conflict of interest, dont you think?

[Harry Balszac]

...and dead silence.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can we separate out the issues? Outside of any appearance-of-impropriety issues, I really want to look at the data (or rather, have people smarter than me look at the data). So far we've got one data point submitted by the car owner -- a data point which (some say) might have issues that render it not illustrative. Please, for the love of all that is holy, somebody get us some data!
So the technology isn't all that we thought it would be. I thought (based on posts here) that it would be
1) invisible until its choke point
2) cut off power at an absolute point
3) not require tuning.

It appears that #1 is not true, and that #3 may not be true (the dyno chart posted was leaner than the no-SIR chart). #2 seems to be untrue as well, as it responds differently on different motors. Given that, does the SIR really buy us anything for the complication and controversy? Or is a really expensive FPR with installation issues?

tom [/b]

Tom,

All good points. I said it before, leaking one data point serves no good. It is just a small piece of the pie and can't be taken in context.

Your 1 through 3 are pretty accurate (not sure 100% on #3 but...) as far as what was sold to us as we went down this road.

Your hypothosis at the end of your post are the exact items that the CRB thought about. I guess they decided the net/net was better for BMW guys and the class. If I was a BMW owner, I would be upset at the timing and upset that this was the 2nd change in 2 years. All I can tell you is that the goal is to reverse engineer the 'process' so that the BMW gets to stay at it's current weight while still fitting in the performance envelope of ITS instead of running forward to get to 3150-3200lbs.

Send your concerns to the CRB. May be too late if you are against SIR's but at least you will be on record.

AB

Wow. Is that the best you have?

Sheesh, and I thought we could avoid personal attacks in this thread.

The fact that I use an amusing screen name, and that I joined today, is 100% irrelevant....but I guess it give you cover to avoid the points I raised, eh?

FYI, my name is David Scott. But I am not sure what difference that makes to the points I, and others, have raised.

As I just posted, my name is David Scott. Now that we have that behind us, please share with the group how on Earth my real name is (1) relevant or (2) imbues me with any more or less credibility?

As for the rest of your points, fine. I can appreciate sticking up for a friend. However, you should have advised your friend to remove himself from this entire matter in the beginning due to the appearance of conflict of interest, dont you think? [/b]

The best I have? What I see is a guy who was hiding behind a stupid name. Welcome to IT.com.

You have raised no valid points I can see. You are a direct transplant from the other board and you can't get by one issue that has been refuted numerous times. For our benefit, please list your issues so we can address them one at a time to satisfy you and all that are still missing the points we are obviously not conveying well. I will be happy to give you the facts as I know them.

As far as the silence? Some people have to have dinner.

Bring on the actual questions about the topic, not about your false perceptions. If you can't, do us all a favor and head on back to Bimmerforums.

AB

[Harry Balszac]

The best I have? What I see is a guy who was hiding behind a stupid name. Welcome to IT.com.

You have raised no valid points I can see. You are a direct transplant from the other board and you can't get by one issue that has been refuted numerous times.

Bring on the actual questions about the topic, not about your false perceptions. If you can't, do us all a favor and head on back to Bimmerforums.

AB
[/b]

Are you absolutely sure about that, Andy?

Oh, and I have. And all I have gotten is crap about my user name, how long I have been posting here, etc.

You sure you are not trying to avoid the real issues here? Namely (in no order whatsoever):

-your conflict(s) of interest
-ITAC's (and your) promises early on that SIR was good to go in 27mm configuration
-now you are backpedaling & blaming the vendor? GIMME A FRIKKING BREAK
-total lack of testing of 27mm SIR
-total lack of transparency of testing 27, 29, and all other SIR sizes that may or may not have been tested
-total lack of transparency about the formulas (citing an arbitrary post # of a long-forgotten BF thread does not cut it)
-multiple promises that 27 (and now 29) SIR would only have an effect at higher than 180-190rwhp
-now you are backpedaling & blaming the vendor...WHERE WAS YOUR DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE THE RULING?
-posting of any & all minutes of ITAC meetings that discussed the E36 issue(s) in which you participated
-shall I go on?

Now....hit me again about my silly user name & how many posts I have. LOL.

[lateapex911]

Back when I was a junior high school teacher, I had a kid announce in front of the class that I was discriminating against him because he was black. I gave him a pass to see the principal, so he could file the official greivance with the district, warranted by that kind of treatment. He didn't do it, came back to class, and worked harder.

The moral as it applies here?

If you honestly believe that any ITAC or Board member is letting a vested interest influence his/her/their club business decisions, you have an obligation to either (a) make an official complaint to SCCA, or ( shut the hell up.

K
[/b]

Thankyou Kirk. I'd like to add that you should sign your complaint/charge, and be very specific in the charge with as much backing documentation as possible.

I do wish that the internet didn't bring out a side of people that (I hope) I wouldn't see in person. If I am ever approached by anyone in the immature way that I have see some demonstrate here, I hope that I will just turn on my heels and walk away. Therefore, I won't respond to any of the less than reasonble comments and claims here.

In terms of the placement of the SIR that I observed at the tests I was present for, I can say this:
When the SIR was placed directly in front of the HFM (?) AFM (?) the car ran poorly and was clearly affected by the pressure variations the SIR presented, even low in the rev range. So we moved the meter to a location, as I explained many posts up, upstream of the SIR.

The wire reached easily, we didn't see the same issues, and the A/F ratio was right in the range it should be, and matched the baseline runs.

Now, is it possible to mount the SIR further upsteam of the meter and acheive good results? I don't know. I understand that Dave Finch (from what has been repeated here) states that that is the way he tested, but I am unaware of any tests he conducted.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Finally, some stuff to actually debate

-your conflict(s) of interest[/b]

Been adressed. You think it's there, it isn't. People who know me and the work I put in know it's a bogus smoke screen to have to avoid the real issues. The ITAC nor the CRB would have anyone serving on their committies that had such demonstrated conflicts. I am as impartial as they come. Sorry to let you down.

-ITAC's (and your) promises early on that SIR was good to go in 27mm configuration
-now you are backpedaling & blaming the vendor? GIMME A FRIKKING BREAK[/b]

We gave you the information as it was given to us. Blame the vendor? Where do you think we got the info? Duh! People flew off the handle with bogus info without doing the research. If they had done the research, they would have come to the same conclusion that was given to us. We were keeping the line of communication open. Was the info flawed? Yes, in some ways that have been detailed.

-total lack of testing of 27mm SIR[/b]

You are right on here. Testing should have happened PRIOR to the CRB laying down the rule. Read this part VERY carefully - the ITAC had NO PART in the decision, the sizing or the implementation dates for the SIR.

-total lack of transparency of testing 27, 29, and all other SIR sizes that may or may not have been tested[/b]

I have seen data on 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34mm SIR's. I hope that the CRB will release findings in their summary statement.

-total lack of transparency about the formulas (citing an arbitrary post # of a long-forgotten BF thread does not cut it)[/b]

You are 100% wrong on this. That post was as detailed as it gets. If you still have questions after really reading it, please post them. This process has been posted here manay times and has the support of the vast majority.

-multiple promises that 27 (and now 29) SIR would only have an effect at higher than 180-190rwhp[/b]

See above (and in multiple explanations in this thread) about what was 'wrong' when the rubber hit the rollers.

-now you are backpedaling & blaming the vendor...WHERE WAS YOUR DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE THE RULING?[/b]

Nobody is backpedaling. We got a recommendation from Raetech on a size and the reasoning behind it. The CRB decided to go 2mm larger based on testing. As far as due dillegence and the ruling, that is a question for the CRB as explained above.

-posting of any & all minutes of ITAC meetings that discussed the E36 issue(s) in which you participated[/b]

See my first response. Let's talk real issues instead of your wrong assumptions about bias that have been shot down. It may appear like there could be an issue but the structure doesn't allow it. Move on.

-shall I go on?[/b]

Please do. This is all being done on the up and up. There is nothig to hide. For specifics on the actual decision and timing etc, send a letter to the CRB, they did it all.

Now....hit me again about my silly user name & how many posts I have. LOL.
[/b]

No need. You are doing a great job yourself.

[mlytle]

Can we separate out the issues? Outside of any appearance-of-impropriety issues, I really want to look at the data (or rather, have people smarter than me look at the data). So far we've got one data point submitted by the car owner -- a data point which (some say) might have issues that render it not illustrative. Please, for the love of all that is holy, somebody get us some data!
So the technology isn't all that we thought it would be. I thought (based on posts here) that it would be
1) invisible until its choke point
2) cut off power at an absolute point
3) not require tuning.

It appears that #1 is not true, and that #3 may not be true (the dyno chart posted was leaner than the no-SIR chart). #2 seems to be untrue as well, as it responds differently on different motors. Given that, does the SIR really buy us anything for the complication and controversy? Or is a really expensive FPR with installation issues?

tom
[/b]

you have summed it up nicely tom. none of the touted benefits have materialized. we (well, not me) now effectively have an expensive fpr to deal with.

[Bill Miller]

Wow.

Name calling.

Denying the truth.

And exclusionary elitism.

You sure are showing IT's best side, aren't you, Bill?
[/b]

Hey Ball Sack, exactly what truth have I denied?


The whole SIR thing stinks to high heaven. There's something going on w/ these things that nobody's telling. I love how people like to jump down Andy's throat because he works on RX7s, but I haven't seen many (any?) people talking about the blatant conflict of interest w/ David Finch promoting a technology and product that his company sells. I've heard about all the money and time he's 'donated' [sic] w.r.t the use of SIRs. The man is in business, and owns a company that has developed and marketed SIRs. He hasn't 'donated' anything. What he's done is spend money to develop a market for a product his company sells.

I also love the people that whine because the SIR effects everybody's motors, and doens't just chop power off the top. Boo frickin' hoo, you can't have a winning car w/ a j/y motor. Welcome to the rest of IT's world.

[buldogge]

Andy...Can we at least hear a summary of the results...ie xxmm equaled xxxrwhp...???

Is this too much to ask?

If you have this info...I see no "danger" in releasing it...other than the truth (a different truth perhaps?)!

TIA

I have seen data on 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34mm SIR's. I hope that the CRB will release findings in their summary statement.
[/b]

[Harry Balszac]

Finally, some stuff to actually debate
Been adressed. You think it's there, it isn't. People who know me and the work I put in know it's a bogus smoke screen to have to avoid the real issues. The ITAC nor the CRB would have anyone serving on their committies that had such demonstrated conflicts. I am as impartial as they come. Sorry to let you down.
We gave you the information as it was given to us. Blame the vendor? Where do you think we got the info? Duh! People flew off the handle with bogus info without doing the research. If they had done the research, they would have come to the same conclusion that was given to us. We were keeping the line of communication open. Was the info flawed? Yes, in some ways that have been detailed.
You are right on here. Testing should have happened PRIOR to the CRB laying down the rule. Read this part VERY carefully - the ITAC had NO PART in the decision, the sizing or the implementation dates for the SIR.
I have seen data on 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34mm SIR's. I hope that the CRB will release findings in their summary statement.
You are 100% wrong on this. That post was as detailed as it gets. If you still have questions after really reading it, please post them. This process has been posted here manay times and has the support of the vast majority.
See above (and in multiple explanations in this thread) about what was 'wrong' when the rubber hit the rollers.
Nobody is backpedaling. We got a recommendation from Raetech on a size and the reasoning behind it. The CRB decided to go 2mm larger based on testing. As far as due dillegence and teh ruling, that is a question for the CRB as explained above.
See my first response. Let's talk real issues instead of your wrong assumptions about bias that have been shot down. It may appear like there could be an issue but the structure doesn't allow it. Move on.
Please do. This is all being done on the up and up. There is nothig to hide. For specifics on the actually decision and timing etc, send a letter to the CRB, they did it all.



No need. You are doing a great job yourself.
[/b]

Andy, all of the text you typed is well & good. However, know this: I did not say that I think you have a conflict of interest.

I said that a large % of the BMW community thinks you do...and everything that has come out of your mouth has only enhanced it. My opinion is irrelevant, and i have not expressed it (if you read my posts here carefully). But the appearance is there, according to a whole raft of folks, and you have done NOTHING to reduce or eliminate it. It's great your friends like you & all. My friends like me, too. So what?

My point is that, despite your protestations, these perceptions have NOT gone away or been "shot down". Rather, they have only grown...and this moronic 29mm decision, mandated to be in effect in 5 weeks, while only making 160rwhp in a bona fide test, only cements that perception. And sorry, but you ARE backpedaling.

This process was very un-transparent. And now, like it or not, you ARE blaming the vendor (again, a party with a major conflict of interest) for giving you advice which increased his sales, instead of dumping this whole rotten idea & starting over.

I appreciate your admission that ITAC should have done due diligence FIRST. That is a big step! Now, to hell with the CRB: it is incumbent on YOU to release 2 things:

1) results from 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34mm SIR's you tested
2) minutes from all ITAC meeting in which you participated where this issue was discussed. Why are you avoiding this issue?????

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy...Can we at least hear a summary of the results...ie xxmm equaled xxxrwhp...???

Is this too much to ask?

If you have this info...I see no "danger" in releasing it...other than the truth (a different truth perhaps?)!

TIA


[/b]

Not too much to ask, I would be asking the same thing but let's just wait until the CRB releases a statement. It's their baby, not mine or the ITAC's.

[Harry Balszac]

Hey Ball Sack, exactly what truth have I denied?
The whole SIR thing stinks to high heaven. There's something going on w/ these things that nobody's telling. I love how people like to jump down Andy's throat because he works on RX7s, but I haven't seen many (any?) people talking about the blatant conflict of interest w/ David Finch promoting a technology and product that his company sells. I've heard about all the money and time he's 'donated' [sic] w.r.t the use of SIRs. The man is in business, and owns a company that has developed and marketed SIRs. He hasn't 'donated' anything. What he's done is spend money to develop a market for a product his company sells.

I also love the people that whine because the SIR effects everybody's motors, and doens't just chop power off the top. Boo frickin' hoo, you can't have a winning car w/ a j/y motor. Welcome to the rest of IT's world.
[/b]

Nice. Are you IT's best, Bill?

What truth are you denying? Simple: That there is a major appearance of conflict of interest/favoritism here.

Now go trash-talk someone else. Your point of view is irrelevant to me.

Not too much to ask, I would be asking the same thing but let's just wait until the CRB releases a statement. It's their baby, not mine or the ITAC's.
[/b]

I am sorry, sir, but, with all due respect, that is a total cop-out.

[buldogge]

Hey Bill... I don't know who these generalizations are levied at...but...I don't have a j/y motor...my motor is FULLY built...as I have already stated, I don't do MOTEC however. Once again...you believe that mandating MOTEC use IS the way to go for IT???

BTW...Several people have whined about Mr. Finch's conflict/product/whatever and were summarily shot-down.

I also love the people that whine because the SIR effects everybody's motors, and doens't just chop power off the top. Boo frickin' hoo, you can't have a winning car w/ a j/y motor. Welcome to the rest of IT's world.
[/b]

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, all of the text you typed is well & good. However, know this: I did not say that I think you have a conflict of interest.[/b]

Do you think I let what I do in my spare time with Mazda's, influences my votes on the committee? If you do, you are wrong. Like I said, the system won't allow it. I would have been out on my ass years ago. I am about to buy an E36 M3 that I once raced in the 90's and we did of course buy Tim Richmond's old E36 World Challenge car...

I said that a large % of the BMW community thinks you do...and everything that has come out of your mouth has only enhanced it. My opinion is irrelevant, and i have not expressed it (if you read my posts here carefully). But the appearance is there, according to a whole raft of folks, and you have done NOTHING to reduce or eliminate it. It's great your friends like you & all. My friends like me, too. So what?[/b]

The people who have taken the time to listen...and understand the issues have no problems.

My point is that, despite your protestations, these perceptions have NOT gone away or been "shot down". Rather, they have only grown...and this moronic 29mm decision, mandated to be in effect in 5 weeks, while only making 160rwhp in a bona fide test, only cements that perception. And sorry, but you ARE backpedaling.[/b]

Again with the conflict of interest. Get to the issues. If you can't let go of this one, I can't help you.

This process was very un-transparent. And now, like it or not, you ARE blaming the vendor (again, a party with a major conflict of interest) for giving you advice which increased his sales, instead of dumping this whole rotten idea & starting over.[/b]

I am telling you that the sizing we got FROM Finch turned out to NOT BE the size the CRB went with. What is your beef with that? There was a mistake made - the CRB for making it a rule without testing and the initial sizing of 27mm. Not sure what else you want to here. Backpedaling? So be it. Some would say it's a correction to a mistake.

appreciate your admission that ITAC should have done due diligence FIRST. That is a big step! Now, to hell with the CRB: it is incumbent on YOU to release 2 things:

1) results from 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34mm SIR's you tested
2) minutes from all ITAC meeting in which you participated where this issue was discussed. Why are you avoiding this issue????? [/b]

No it's not. The CRB did the testing. They will release the data.

Ask me my opinion on any BMW issue and I will tell you.

[Geo]

Well I know Chuck, and his engines are clearanced to make HP immediately.

All these personal attacks and accusations have to stop, guys this isn't JR HIGH SCHOOL! I'm disappointed that the results haven't been posted as promised, I'm alittle bummed that the CRB hasn't made it manditory for the placement of the SIR so now it's a gussing game. The CRB has made a decision. Try it if you don't like the results, we have other options.
[/b]

Speaking of Jr. High...

How in bloody hell was that a personal attack or accusation? I'm at a loss for this....