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

[e36its]

We interrupt your regularly scheduled endless discussion of the SIR with a request for a little tech:

Does an air flow meter care about its orientation? Obviously, direction of flow must be maintained or the ecu will be forced to adapt to the highly unlikely situation of the motor exhaling 100 cfm of air through the intake, but what about rotating the AFM? My inclination is that it wouldn't matter, but I believe way back someone (Gary Bossert?) referenced a loss of power from rotating an HFM. Any thoughts?

tom

[JamesB]

The AFM shouldnt care about rotating. Due to the way my intercooler on my jetta is done I had to invert my AFM 180degrees, after doing so at the dyno by suggestion of the tuner (less strain on the harness) I saw no loss in power.

[lateapex911]

Tom....I believe it is a hot wire device, correct? if so, then no, theoretically, it's orientation should be irrelevant. If it were a "door" type, then yes, it would matter. But...this is coming froma carb guy, who's just trying to help, LOL.

[steve s]

can someone on the itac board or someone in authority answer this question,
since carlos and myself is spending a lot of time and money developing the SIR
would the BMW be allowed to run in ITS w/SIR.and in ITR w/o SIR ??????
if the bmw would not be allowed in ITS then all this time and money would be wasted.
just don't want to waste more time on the SIR . thank you.

[JeffYoung]

Steve, I am not a member of the ITAC, but I did write a portion of the ITR proposal. As written, the 325is goes to ITR unrestricted -- it is moved out of S entirely. After some posting here and on Bimmerforums, I thought this is what the BMW folks who responded (admittedly they were few) wanted. If not, let the CRB and ITAC know.

I don't like the SIR but I think it is up to you guys to decide where to run your car so long as it fits the process.

Mark, thanks for the post above. I guess we do have to agree to disagree. In the SEDiv, I have yet to see a topflight RX7 that can compete with a 10/10 BMW (Chet Whittel or Ed York). Huffmaster came the closest at the ARRC last year. Steve E. and Kent Thompson have FAST RX7s but from what I've seen can't come close.

The power to weight process puts the BMW at 3100 lbs to make it on even footing with the RX7 and the 240z. That's just the way the numbers come out.

[Bill Miller]

can someone on the itac board or someone in authority answer this question,
since carlos and myself is spending a lot of time and money developing the SIR
would the BMW be allowed to run in ITS w/SIR.and in ITR w/o SIR ??????
if the bmw would not be allowed in ITS then all this time and money would be wasted.
just don't want to waste more time on the SIR . thank you.
[/b]

Steve,

I know of no other car in IT that's allowed to run in 2 different classes based on either weight or an SIR. That being said, I would imagine that if ITR happens, and if the E36 goes there, that it won't run in ITS anymore, either at a higher weight, or w/ an SIR. Not on the ITAC or CRB, but I do drive by a Holiday Inn Express from time to time.

[its66]

Mark, our regional sprint race series is the SARRC. I've been to:

1. April Carolina Motorsports Park -- no E36s.

2. April Roebling -- 1 E36 (Carlos Garcia, pre-SIR).

3. I did not attend VIR in March, but understand there was one E36 there for the enduro (the Robertsons' car).

4. May VIR (SARR/MARRS, that usually draws 5-6 E36s) -- no E36s

5. May CMP -- no E36s.

ITS is struggling here as well I would say and I'm not a fan of the SIR (and especially its timing).

However, I do have one very strong disagreement with your post. Yes, there are (or were) a few cars in the SE that in my view could not be beaten by a top prep RX7 or 240z (Chet Whittel, Ed York, Seth Thomas, James Clay, etc.). Unfortunately, because that is the car's potential, that is what the ITAC (which I am not a member of) has to use when running the car through the formula.

What in my view the ITAC is properly trying to avoid is a situation where 9/10 or 8/10 BMWs can run with and beat 10/10 RX7s and Z cars, which is what I believe has been the case for several years. I have seen several instances of rookie drivers in E36s running near or at the front, and frankly, given the level of prep and driving skill required in other ITS cars, that's not right.

Something needed to be done.
[/b]

Jeff, add one more.

6. June, Sebring short course. 1 E36
ITS was in grp 1 http://www.cfrscca.org/results_archive.html

[Andy Bettencourt]

can someone on the itac board or someone in authority answer this question,
since carlos and myself is spending a lot of time and money developing the SIR
would the BMW be allowed to run in ITS w/SIR.and in ITR w/o SIR ??????
if the bmw would not be allowed in ITS then all this time and money would be wasted.
just don't want to waste more time on the SIR . thank you.
[/b]

Steve,

I would doubt that it would have dual classification - but that is a CRB call. I would MOST certainly write a letter in if you wanted that. I personally wouldn't vote for it (because it opens the flood gates for a 'you do it for them, why not me' letter writing flood - and the car should be just fine in ITR) but the CRB may be thinking this could be a good idea.

I do sympathise with owners/drivers that have spent the time and money to buy and develop the SIR. It is possible that it won't be a requirment in 2007 should ITR make it. But ITR is not a done deal.

In all seriousness however - on a personal note - how does the 'development' of the SIR effect your program cost-wise if you were already doing this as Carlos posted earlier:

So, there is NO limit on spending to get my car prepped to the FULLEST LEGAL potential. Countless hours on the dyno just made me buy my own dyno and spend even more time on it (actually not me it's the brain Steve Saney). This car is on the dyno 4 days before EVERY race weekend and when it comes back. Leak downs performed always after every weekend. fresh brakes EVERY Weekend as well as liquids. [/b]

The results from the West Coast and the Southeast are CLEARLY showing that the E36 is a true contender (ie: still winning races) with the SIR. Fred A. and Greg P. - what do you make of the results? You continue to post death sentences yet those with top prep and top driving are still seeing success. (Oh ya Fred, the E36 M3 is NOT in ITR...).

[lateapex911]

Generally I am not a fan of dual classing certain models at different weights, but in this single case I could be talked into an exception, but a limited one. Say the 2007 year only...after that, it's ITR or nothing.

I see both sides of the case, and am open to other ideas.

[RSTPerformance]

Any BMW driver who wishes to have the car classed in both classes (ITS W/SIR & ITR W/out SIR) I fully support. I will be the first to jump on the rants and say that It would be a disapointment and a shame for SCCA to make that many "required" drastic changes to a "regional level" car at the cost of its members.

While I think that a change was needed and that the SIR might have been the proper way to make the change I do feel for those who had to make the costly adjustments. Making adjustments back would be unjust IMO.

SCCA in general has plenty of cars that fit into two classes, in this case I do not think that we as a club need to limit our view of past history soley on "IT."

If the cars have to be classed only in ITR w/out an SIR then possibly SCCA as a club could realize the misfortune that many BMW drivers has had to go through and could somehow pay them for thier investment with a free race or two? It might cost us in the short run, but in the long run it might bring back some members that we may have lost trust in.

I know that my thoughts are way "out of the box" but isn't that sort of thinking what got us to the SIR anyhow??? Just my thoughts on making something just;

Raymond Blethen
Member # 270386

[Bill Miller]

Raymond,

What does it matter if it's Regional or National? That's a total non-issue, and really isn't germane to the discussion at hand. People pick the car, the class, and the level that they want to race at. You've got plenty of people running IT w/ much larger investments, and much larger budgets, than several people that run Nationals.

And while I also feel for the E36 folks that have spent the money to develop the cars w/ an SIR, rules changes are a fact of life. RR shocks, engine coatings, open ECUs, etc., etc., etc. All rules changes cost people money and time, that's a fact of life. I don't like the idea of dual classifications in IT, but given the uniquness of the E36 situation, I would go along with, and support it, if ITR happens, for one year.

[steve s]

firstly mid year[ for SE.div ]. SCCA throw an SIR on you .
then at the end of the year you won't need it.
we are trying to help SCCA bring back racers here and all i'm hearing is no .
showing everyone that the SIR can work you can win at some track and be a top 8 at
some HP tracks , which is not bad .
but you know what i give up with this BS. we could have just ran the car in p1 or p2[ not sure ]
without restrictor and we wouldn't have wasted all this time and money.
i guess the SIR was not a good investment for the BMW driver who tried it .but someone made some money???????
why couldn't SCCA just say next year you run ITR unrestricted???????? and run the FP till year end ????
show me any car out there that had this injustice brought to them and i'll keep my mouth shut.!!!!
SCCA REALLY SUCKS BIG TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JeffYoung]

Steve, Ron and I didn't even begin writing the SIR proposal until AFTER the SIR announcement. Nor is it (ITR) a done deal. The "sucky" SCCA didn't "plan" the timing of the SIR and ITR deals. It just happened that way.

What are you hearing "no" about? I don't follow you on that one.

Is Sebring not a hp track?

Are you bringing Carlos' car to Roebling in July?


Did you guys submit a dyno sheet to the CRB back when it was trying to decide between an SIR and weight? If not, you share some responsibility in the fact that the car got the SIR and not weight.

Do you agree that the BMW needed one or the other? If not, you will never be happy in IT racing because that (SIR or weight) is what the process dictates.

[lateapex911]

firstly mid year[ for SE.div ]. SCCA throw an SIR on you .
then at the end of the year you won't need it.
we are trying to help SCCA bring back racers here and all i'm hearing is no .
showing everyone that the SIR can work you can win at some track and be a top 8 at
some HP tracks , which is not bad .
but you know what i give up with this BS. we could have just ran the car in p1 or p2[ not sure ]
without restrictor and we wouldn't have wasted all this time and money.
i guess the SIR was not a good investment for the BMW driver who tried it .but someone made some money???????
why couldn't SCCA just say next year you run ITR unrestricted???????? and run the FP till year end ????
show me any car out there that had this injustice brought to them and i'll keep my mouth shut.!!!!
SCCA REALLY SUCKS BIG TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/b]

Dude...I'll try to be calm and concise. Your post has got to be missing words...it's like it's written in abbreviations, but the bottom line is the final comment.

One comment I got, was the "Someone made money" line. Really? Are you sure? Have you seen the profit and loss statements for the SIR from , hmmm, lets just choose one supplier, Raetech?? No, of course you haven't, so crap like that just doesn't fly.

Or how about the club?? Did THEY make money?? Hmmm..well, heres how it went...CRB guys and ITAC guys spent money out of their own pocket to test the damn thing. Don't tell me otherwise, I was there, and I own about $100 bucks less now for my trouble. And my costs were light compared to others. Did we test enough? Not in my opinion, but I'm just one guy. We tested far more than ever before though.

But saying the WHOLE club sucks because ONE f-ing car got a bad deal? Total BS, and you should be ashamed......the car got a GREAT deal for years ...lots of guys are whining right now because they actually have to go do SOME homework. We got one letter from a guy who won, and ran top three all the time with a stock motor, and was upset that he would now have to prep his car at the same level as his competitors!! How fair is that???? Like I lost a lot of tears over that one, LOL.

Sorry, but the club tried to do the best it could. Remember, the "Club" is guys like you and me. Volunteers. The "club" made mistakes. It made a mistake long before my involvemnt in the classing of this car, and it made errors in the process of clipping it's wings. We've apologized until we are blue in the face over issues like timing, etc, but on the other hand, no IT car has gotten as much testing and attention as this one. I've gotten comments from members effectively saying, "Stop...just add weight, slap a SIR on it, whatever....it's ONE car...it doesn't deserve the amount of attention it's getting, when there are bigger issues to attend to."

But an entire club can't be blasted that way for ONE car...

Your comment was very irresponsible and way out of line.

(This message brought by my opinion, not necessarily those of the organization.)

[RSTPerformance]

Bill-

Why is IT a regional class? I think that might tell us why it matters if is is a Regional or National class...

Also Agreed rules change, and we deal with it... but this is a unique situation as everyone seems to agree

Also agreed many people spend Tons on IT cars and that is wonderful for the class as a whole, it brings the "level" up a few notches from back in the day when it really was just a place to start, even though it still is... or should be IMO

Also, I support a dual class for 1 year, 2 years, life, grandfathering, anything that would help retain our members and not upset people like we already have... weather we have or not is not an issue we have... weather it is just that we have I am not about to argue either way.

Raymond

PS: Steve, SCCA RULES and offers the best racing in North America IMO

[Bill Miller]

Raymond,

IT is Regional-only for several reasons. Mostly it's due to a long-held view by some in our club that IT cars are not 'real' race cars. Couple that w/ groups of low-participation cars trying to protect their turf. You've also got some IT folks that feel that having IT go National will make them spend more money to keep up w/ those that have the money, and want to 'go to the show'. But, I'm not going to hijack this thread to deal w/ the Regional-only nature of IT.

[e36its]

Did we test enough? Not in my opinion, but I'm just one guy. We tested far more than ever before though.[/b]

The ITAC/CRB is to be commended for doing the testing. They could have made a decision by fiat without any information gathering and that would have been that. But I'd maintain the testing was necessitated by the fact that the CRB has chosen to blaze new ground with use of the SIR in IT -- so the CRB gets points for making the decision to test, but working outside the box of accepted solutions was also their decision.

We got one letter from a guy who won, and ran top three all the time with a stock motor, and was upset that he would now have to prep his car at the same level as his competitors!! How fair is that???? Like I lost a lot of tears over that one, LOL.[/b]

I see what you're coming from, Jake -- the sense of entitlement is troubling. However, let's not overstate things: I don't have to prep to the same level as the other competitors in IT. I have to prep to a level BEYOND the other competitors in IT. Maybe it benefits me long term vs. weight, maybe not... but it's undoubtedly different.

We've apologized until we are blue in the face over issues like timing, etc, but on the other hand, no IT car has gotten as much testing and attention as this one. I've gotten comments from members effectively saying, "Stop...just add weight, slap a SIR on it, whatever....it's ONE car...it doesn't deserve the amount of attention it's getting, when there are bigger issues to attend to."[/b]

I do appreciate the mea culpa from the powers-that-be and absolutely agree that this has consumed a bigger chunk of everyone's time and attention than anyone would have liked... but I'd offer the counterpoint that it's one car in one class to everyone else, but it's MY WHOLE RACING PROGRAM from my perspective. So you can forgive me if the issues feel a bit bigger from my side of the fence.

In that light: I'd say moving the E36 from ITS to ITR is a mistake. I support the classification of the car in ITR (and the ITR proposal overall, nice work!), but I think the ITS classification should remain. I can understand the desire to avoid dual classification and the precedent it might set, but we're so far past the E36 being similar to any other car in IT that I think it'd be quite reasonable to avoid similar requests in the future. Here's the precedent: Any IT car can request dual classification after it's had its motor restricted by two different new-to-IT methods in as many years and then moved into a brand new class requring different wheels.

Look at it this way: it's (from what I can see) a low-consequence way to avoid impacting the E36 owner another time.

tom

[JeffYoung]

Tom, that is a good, thoughtful post by a BMW driver. Much appreciated.

Jeff

[lateapex911]

Agreed, nice points. Thats why I would support a dual classing concept for this car. Only.

[Bill Miller]

Agreed, nice points. Thats why I would support a dual classing concept for this car. Only.
[/b]

Yep, me too, but only for 1 year after ITR is created.