It's May 1st...How's your SIR???

[e36its]

RANT MODE[/b]

Yay. Rant mode. Always a sign of helpful comments to come...

And Spare me the woe-is-me sob stories about how unfair the BMW is being treated...[/b]

I don't like to use unfair, it's one of those terms that seems to provoke rant mode. A caution, though: be careful on the high horse, it's a long way down... I'd take a slightly different twist on the situation. If the SCCA decides that there needs to be some pseudo-formula for classification (a Process if you will) that's fine. But when the decision is made to abandon The Process and go with what's behind door C, I think one must throw away the moral superiority of hiding behind The Process. The Process might've helped to illuminate something that needed to be changed in the classification, but it sure didn't have anything to do with an SIR.

Before: BMW is an outlier. Everyone else is made to fit save the BMW.
After: BMW is an outlier. Everyone else is made to fit save the BMW, which is treated differently. Maybe better, maybe worse... but undeniably differently.

For those of us who fought to do something to correct the overdog problem WITHOUT making the BMW uncompetitive... your bitching and moaning is a slap in the face and an insult... [/b]

It is? Look, I think it's possible to disagree with the outcome of a decision making process without casting aspersions on the lineage of all the people involved. Maybe we'll have to disagree on this one, but I think I can be unhappy that a 7" chunk of aluminum tube was pulled out of someone's hiney without applying a proverbial slap in your face.

I don't give a rats A$$ if you agree with the methods being tried, but to suggest that anything but the best intentions were at hand is childish and uninformed... [/b]

Who ARE you talking to? It's like you're not even talking at Marshall anymore...

Or... you can run off and leave the SCCA to run with another organization, and essentially admit that you can't make the cut in a heads up situation... Perhaps you aren't quite the driver you think you are?? [/b]

Rant mode didn't disappoint... it's been many years since I've seen a well-executed playground "neener-neener" taunt. Nicely done.

Maybe, just maybe, leaving the SCCA is a sign that a decision making process is kinda broken since the powers that be view dissent as "a slap in the face" and "woe is me sob stories", not to mention "bitching and moaning"? Perhaps an organization that would "give a rat's a$$"?

Sheesh.

tom

[Bill Miller]

Before: BMW is an outlier. Everyone else is made to fit save the BMW.
After: BMW is an outlier. Everyone else is made to fit save the BMW, which is treated differently. Maybe better, maybe worse... but undeniably differently.[/b]

Pretty much sums it up.

[Banzai240]

Rant mode didn't disappoint... it's been many years since I've seen a well-executed playground "neener-neener" taunt. Nicely done.
[/b]

Seemed to fit right in with the "I'm going to take my ball and go home..." attitude expressed in the trigger post...

Perhaps an organization that would "give a rat's a$$"?

Sheesh.

tom
[/b]

Exactly WHAT do you want us to give a rat's... about?? Are you suggesting that the SCCA hasn't been trying to do this the RIGHT way?

NO car in the history of IT... NOT even the 1st Gen RX-7, has gotten as much attention... has gotten as much discussion... has had as many angles analyzed... had as MUCH DATA gathered... as the BMW E36 in ITS... The result of which was four choices... 1) Leave the car as it is and watch the rest of ITS dwindle helplessly away due to lack of competitiveness... 2) Try to speed EVERYONE else up... 3) Adjust the classification weight of the car to be more appropriate to it's output... 4) Restrict the output to be more appropriate to the car's current weight...

You tell ME what the right answer would have been, knowing that in IT the ONLY way to speed up ... Lay out exactly how you would have wanted us to CARE more about this issue.... Tell us... Just what is it that you see us NOT caring about?

Yah... I went on an attacking rant... pretty childish looking back on it... but I'm SICK of these attitudes of people who presume that THEY know the answers, and everyone else is an idiot, incapable, or otherwise incompetent...

The boards and committees that are working these issues (CRB, BoD, ACs, etc.) DO give a rip what happens... and no group cares as much as the current ITAC cares... So excuse me if, after all the effort we've put into this class, we, or at least I, take offense to the accusations and mis-informed non-sense that get's thrown our way...

You may consider getting the facts of the situation out into the open a waste of time... I think it's important for people to understand that this organization is run by people who DO CARE, who ARE working for the betterment of the class, etc... And again... I am completely confident that, if WE made the wrong choice on this car, or need to make a correction to get it "right"... it will be done... Until that is proven, however, again... you are no more "right" than we are...

Oh, and one more thing... the Process says the car should weigh approx. 3200lbs... That would put it in target wt/pwr ratio... If you want to keep the car at 2850lbs... the only option is to work the other part of the ratio, which is the "pwr"... That is what the CRB elected to do, and it's a valid, albiet unpopular, way to get to the SAME outcome... which is a wt/pwr ratio that is at the target for ITS... PCAs allow for weight or restrictors... so everything that has been done within the current IT procedures... The PROCESS is used to determine what a car should weight for a given class... Application of PCA adjustments additionally allow for the restrictor... Again... either way accomplishes the same goal.

In my opinion, if the SIR can be made to work as it's intended... then it's the better option for this car, as it keeps the weight very reasonable for the class...

But, believe as you will...

Sorry for "wasting" more of you time...

[dj10]

Before: BMW is an outlier. Everyone else is made to fit save the BMW.
After: BMW is an outlier. Everyone else is made to fit save the BMW, which is treated differently. Maybe better, maybe worse... but undeniably differently.
tom
[/b]

After: BMW is an outlier. Everyone else is made to fit save the BMW, which is treated differently. Maybe better, maybe worse... but undeniably differently.

Yep, we are. We are the giunea pigs, I'll bet you a dime to a donut we are the 1st of things to come. IMO



You guys need to take a pill & chill.

[Z3_GoCar]

I hope John Norris posts soon....

When I taked to him on Saturday morning, yeah, from the Dyno the hp did drop to the levels discussed. Even so, I watch the race on Saturday and
Now maybe the results were due to the short track at BW, or John just knows how to drive :P

On a less happy note, I heard that there was an accident on hwy 5 comming home. I only briefly meet Hans. My prayers are with him, his family, and friends.

James

John,

You've known Kevin longer than I have. I'll never forget him telling me, " Oh My G Hans is dead I can't believe it!" I wan't sure who Kevin was talking about, but I definetly remember meeting Franz and seeing him around.

[dj10]

I hope John Norris posts soon....

When I taked to him on Saturday morning, yeah, from the Dyno the hp did drop to the levels discussed. Even so, I watch the race on Saturday and
Now maybe the results were due to the short track at BW, or John just knows how to drive :P

On a less happy note, I heard that there was an accident on hwy 5 comming home. I only briefly meet Hans. My prayers are with him, his family, and friends.

James [/b]

James, I guess Hans was his crew man? John did email me and said his crew man was killed coming back from the track. I'm sure this is hard on John.
Ditto on the prayers.

[dspillrat]

plus Quaife (only solution for my car other than welding) means about $1500 to $1800 per rear end.

Sheesh! And these guys are complaining about dyno time to tune their SIR! DJ, Marshall, come join the fun!

David, do you mix and match welded vs. Quaife LSDs on the car? Do you have to change the spring rates all around when you do?

[/b]

I hate to highjack this thread .....I'll respond over at your Others "strange" cars section

David

[BMW RACER]

Guys.

Thanks for the thoughts and kind words.

Actually his name was Franz, but was used to being called Hans! Must be that old Hans & Franz deal.

He was a great crew person, friend and above all a great person.

I'm really going to miss him. This is hard.

I ran with the SIR I'll share info when things settle down

Thanks again.

[Banzai240]

Guys.

Thanks for the thoughts and kind words.

Actually his name was Franz, but was used to being called Hans! Must be that old Hans & Franz deal.

He was a great crew person, friend and above all a great person.

I'm really going to miss him. This is hard.

I ran with the SIR I'll share info when things settle down

Thanks again.
[/b]

You take your time John... You definately have more important matters at hand... I'm terribly sorry to hear about this tragic event... We'll keep the families in our prayers...

[JLawton]

Guys.

Thanks for the thoughts and kind words.

Actually his name was Franz, but was used to being called Hans! Must be that old Hans & Franz deal.

He was a great crew person, friend and above all a great person.

I'm really going to miss him. This is hard.

I ran with the SIR I'll share info when things settle down

Thanks again.
[/b]

John,
Very sorry to hear the news. It puts all this arguing over rules and such a little more in perspective.....

[e36its]

Seemed to fit right in with the "I'm going to take my ball and go home..." attitude expressed in the trigger post...[/b]

Not sure I follow... there are E36 racers who are not convinced that the SCCA is taking the a proper direction with classifying the car. Isn't it a reasonable course of action to evaluate the venues open to the chassis and choose the one that fits best? Characterizing that as "I'm going to take my ball and go home..." seems to have more to do with how you're reading the statement than Marshall's evaluation of BMWCCA as the best fit for him given the current ruleset.

Exactly WHAT do you want us to give a rat's... about?? Are you suggesting that the SCCA hasn't been trying to do this the RIGHT way?[/b]

I have not suggested that -- if I've given that impression then I apologize, publicly. I have stated that I think SCCA chose the wrong path to address this performance disparity in ITS. There's a difference.

Look, I disagree with the path we have taken with the SIR. I think reasonable well-intentioned people can disagree on the right way to solve a problem... hell, I sometimes disagree with myself on the right way to solve problems. (I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader if I could be characterized as "reasonable".) My disagreement does not imply that you're a bad person or that I'd kick your dog if we crossed paths. What I am is someone who gets irritated when an ITAC member calls my position "bitching and moaning", a "woe is me sob story", and proclaims he does not "give a rat's a$$" about the members of a member driven organization. Strikes me that all that can achieve is to make those of us who were not the puppy-punters even more unhappy with the way things have gone.

It seems like you're reacting to the bad behavior of a few but lobbing verbal grenades into the masses in response. That's just the way it's reading from these cheap seats.

He was a great crew person, friend and above all a great person.[/b]

I think that's a terrific way to eulogize someone. My condolences to his family and friends. There will be plenty of time to talk about the SIR after you've had time to deal with this terrible loss.

tom

[lateapex911]

Wow, John sorry to hear that. I hope you won his last race.

Guys, I think that Darin and you are closer to the same page than you might think, and if you sat down and had a beer it might seem clearer. Or at least you'd have a beer.

What you guys don't see is the letters that the CRB and ITAC have gotten on this. The comments and accusations go way way beyond whats been said here. And the BMW board left a lasting impression as well.

Interestingly, some of the harshest critics who wrote some of the most stinging letters were people, who, when we looked at who the letter writer was, and his involvement, were often rather underprepared, and were enjoying significant success.

Darin was probably a little overstated and his comments may have been better directed at those who were the actual instegators, so to speak, but at this point in this story, I am sure it all begins to blur together about who said what. Still, I hate to see guys leave the series before understanding the real effect, but I also understand that their faith in that effect is low, and that staying is perceived as a high risk low reward scenario. I applaud the guys who have soldiered on, and Darins point about the ITAC and the CRB bending over backwards in their attempt to be fair is absolutely true.

One point missed by those who aren't BMW owners is the possible...or maybe probable need to change diff ratios. Some will point out that the rest of the class has to have a "quiver" of ratios, so it's only fair that the E36 should as well. But that ignores the fact that the top guys probably already had a quiver, and are now trying to figure out what arrows still work, and what don't. So having to do that bit of purchasing twice sucks for them.

All in all, this was a tough deal. The class had issues as it stood, and none of the solutions were pretty. In the end, it looks like everybody is grumbling ...and who knows, if thats the case, then maybe it was the best solution that could be expected.

That said, Ron Earp and Jeff Young have been doodling on cocktail napkins about a class on top of ITS, and I called them to see if the E36 could fit. Marshall helped as did DJ with some input on achevable weights when I sent them questions, and I think the concept could spell relief for the E36, perhaps as soon as 2007. Initial discussions have been productive and the class has taken shape. A preliminary proposal has been looked at by the CRB, to favorable response. Of course, theres a lot more work to do, and each step has the potential to derail the concept, but at this point in time, there is solid hope.

I am sure a well reasoned supportive letter would be a good thing if you think going fast without an SIR is better than going slow with one. But be warned....the car will have it's hands full. It's going to be a rockin class.

[Adroitracer]

Hello all!!!

I am new to the group. I recently purchased a 93 bmw 325is (with limited slip) with the intention of turning it into an ITS car. Can anyone here give me a rundown on the basics of things to do.

I have already replaced...
Shocks (went to bilstien sports for the time being) Control arms and bushings, trailing arms and bushings, sway bar bushings and links, guibo. The drivetrain looks really solid, and subframe is in tact (does not have the reinforcements installed). I am trying to get all the rules figured out before I begin making big changes to the car.

I have purchased the entire suspension and braking system (including master cylinder) from an e36 M3, but do not know which parts I can use and which I cannot. I would love to use the brakes, but from what I read we have to use the stock size rotors and master cylinder. Any advise would be very helpful.

[Bill Miller]

Hello all!!!

I am new to the group. I recently purchased a 93 bmw 325is (with limited slip) with the intention of turning it into an ITS car. Can anyone here give me a rundown on the basics of things to do.

I have already replaced...
Shocks (went to bilstien sports for the time being) Control arms and bushings, trailing arms and bushings, sway bar bushings and links, guibo. The drivetrain looks really solid, and subframe is in tact (does not have the reinforcements installed). I am trying to get all the rules figured out before I begin making big changes to the car.

I have purchased the entire suspension and braking system (including master cylinder) from an e36 M3, but do not know which parts I can use and which I cannot. I would love to use the brakes, but from what I read we have to use the stock size rotors and master cylinder. Any advise would be very helpful.
[/b]

My first piece of advice would be to get a copy of the rule book (GCR). You can buy this from the main office in Topeka, or download it from www.scca.com

Unless any of those M3 parts are also stock 325 parts, about the only thing you could use are the shocks/springs, as they're pretty much open. You definately can't use the brakes.

[Stan]

At the risk of appearing to...

Darin listed four choices for dealing with the Bimmer...

1) Leave the car as it is and watch the rest of ITS dwindle helplessly away due to lack of competitiveness...
2) Try to speed EVERYONE else up...
3) Adjust the classification weight of the car to be more appropriate to it's output...
4) Restrict the output to be more appropriate to the car's current weight...[/b]

He forgot one...declassifying the 325is. However, the CRB didn't want to do that without having somewhere else to classify the car. Choice number 1 was unacceptable to the CRB and number 2 isn't practical -- you can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, so the choices boiled down to numbers 3 and 4.

While one might challenge some of the constants used in the Process Equation, to call it "pseudo" is incorrect. The equation is based on solid engineering principles and is going a long way towards regularising IT classifications. Furthermore, the Process is subject to continuing refinements that promise to make it even more accurate. In any case, IMO it is infinitely superior to the method...or should I say, lack of method previously employed.

In the end the ITAC itself could not reach a clear concensus as to whether process weight or a restricter was preferable for the 325is, and tabled the decision for the CRB to make. After considerable discussion among the CRB member, two factors tipped the scales in the direction of the SIR. First, no front runner or engine prep shop would share current dyno numbers with the CRB from which to ascertain accurate hp numbers. Second, most competitors we talked to were already down at or near the 2850 minimum weight. So the decision hovered over whether to have guys adding 350-450 lbs of ballast to their cars (depending on whose hp numbers one believed), or if we should impose an SIR to ensure hp did not exceed the target value. In the end we picked an SIR, whose size was subsequently increased after testing was done on 3 different dynos.

Is it possible we erred? Certainly. Last I looked in the mirror I was still human, and presumably capable of error. Could we have chosen weight? Sure, and I believe we would have if we'd had good hp numbers from the outset.

But IMO the real answer is to create a nationally recognised IT class where the 325is and similarly high powered touring cars can run in their own class without artificial restrictions, which is where the ITR class comes in. The Adhoc Committe is nearly ready to send up a formal proposal to create that class. If the proposal goes through, the 325is and similar cars will at long last have a class of their own. I am excited by the concept and I think the competitors will be, as well.

Cheers!

[Z3_GoCar]

So Stan,

Are you working on implementing ITR in SFR? Any chance I can get your support for ITR in Cal Club? Which run group will we run? ITE/GT/AS? or would we stay with T/IT? My angle on the SIR is that, within reason, I hope it can be made to work out. So then I can ask for my Z3 to be classed with one also. What with the Z3 being aged out in T2/ST I'd fully expect it to be classed somewhere, but as it now stands there's no where other than ITE.

James

[Stan]

James,

The proposal for ITR is to implement it as a nationally recognised IT class, in addition to the current ITS-ITC classes, so no, I am not working to implement it in SFR. ITE is recognised by numerous regions, but each has its own ITE class rules, and there is no nation-wide single set of recognised rules. I suppose that's one downside of "bottom up" class building.

If the ITR class is approved by the CRB and BoD, it will be automatically recognised by all regions, just as ITS and ITC are, for example. But as always, if the class is approved it will be up to the local regions to group it in the race group which best suits that region's needs.

Your Z3 would be an ideal candidate for the class. I suggest waiting to see if the class is approved before volunteering for an SIR -- they have not been universally well received...

[JeffYoung]

Interesting -- so the lack of a "top prep" dyno sheet made the power potential of the 325is an unknown for the CRB? That clears things up a bit, as it means the SIR was the ONLY way (and I still don't like the thing but at least I understand more about why it was used) to ensure an acceptable power to weight ratio.

[Bill Miller]

What else is interesting, is that you can deduce from Stan's comments, is that it's possible that the dyno sheets that the ITAC/CRB did get, were not indicitive of the max potential of the car.

[seckerich]

I would check out the Florida results from this weekend before you start talking about dead Bimmers. SIR seems to not work as well in southern climates. Moroso was a dog fight from what I hear today.