SIR TEST RESULTS

[Greg Amy]

Andy, slowly put down the keyboard and step away. Slowly, slowly, slowly...very good...go visit your kids, kiss your wife, etc...

OK, everyone else, move along please, there's nothing to see here...!

[DavidM]

The ITA guys that got weight added aren't screaming. I think some of the ones that got weight added should be pretty upset.
[/b]

I got 100 lbs and think it sucks ass. I think the Integra guys got 115 and I'm guessing they think it sucks. However, we all seem to understand that the goal is to level the playing field so that the best cars and drivers win. I am taking a wait and see attitude.

My opinion is give the E36 the weight the process says it should have and be done with it. It's the same process that gave weight or took away weight from all the other cars. I think the mistake was giving the CRB a choice.

I don't think it would be such a bad idea to allow alternate mounting locations for ballast. I'm not talking about a free for all, but maybe specify 3 or 4 different areas where ballast could be located. Something like passenger footwell, behind drivers seat, behind passenger seat, or in a specific place in the trunk. That would allow some weight distribution and it wouldn't be like driving around with a fat person in the passenger seat.

David

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,


Four different makes in the top eight positions - seems balanced to me. [/b]

Just another example as to why you can't use results. Selective use to support your cause.

Rob, you quote close racing in the NE in 2004. That was with UNRESTRICTED E36's. That year at the ARRC, the car you ran neck and neck with (RX-7) in your E36 was 2 seconds off the pace at RA to the unrestricted Bimmers - and was the top non-Bmw at the race.

This year, when they were restricted, it looks even - but I can provide you WAY more data points as to why the race wasn't as close as the numbers showed than you can to show otherwise.

I'll say it for the 500th time, the CRB isn't looking for ADDITIONAL restriction on the E36, just a better, more effective one that can't be cheated in a situation where you know a teardown isn't coming...hence the SIR. If you don't like that, the only other alternative is to have it weigh WHAT IT SHOULD.

And using a car count as data to support a balanced result! HA! If you want to use results, at least look at the times...maybe because it doesn't support your arguement? The Z was 1.4 seconds back, the Prelude was 2.3 seconds back...BALANCED??? I can spin the numbers as fast as you can.

Here's a revelation - it's not about results. It's about the process.

Andy, slowly put down the keyboard and step away. Slowly, slowly, slowly...very good...go visit your kids, kiss your wife, etc...

OK, everyone else, move along please, there's nothing to see here...! [/b]

Dang Greg - should have looked down further! Backing away....further....further....

[dj10]

[quote]
dj, have you been living under a rock for the last 3-4 years? What part of "there was no 'process' or 'formula' for spec'ing cars before this iteration of the ITAC developed one" did you miss? And I guess you missed the part where the CRB (CB at the time) changed the weight of the car from 2850# to 2950#, and the E36 guys screamed "illegal comp. adj." and the CB capitulated and reset the weight to 2850#. I guess you also missed the part where this ITAC asked for weight on the car last year, and for some reason the CRB threw a flat-plat restrictor at it.

Bill, I just a started racing ITS last year! I sold my ITE Porsche in 2000 and just got back in racing. I've never had to deal with shit like this before so this mess is new to me. To answer your question, I suppose I have been under a rock, sorry. I know nothing about this stuff before last year.
To me 2950# was not impractical IMO.
dj

[Bill Miller]

Fair enough dj, sorry for the tone of my post. After discussing this time and time again, it's a tad frustrating to go over a lot of the history.

My opinion is give the E36 the weight the process says it should have and be done with it. It's the same process that gave weight or took away weight from all the other cars. I think the mistake was giving the CRB a choice.
[/b]

Yet another voice of reason.

[seckerich]

We will have a meeting for "easy winners anonomous" later this month where we will add the lead in 50# increments over a 12 day period. Greg will preside over the meetings to help with the trauma. Fair racing will procede as planned at the beginning of April.

[seamus88]

To hit us all at once then make us put all this weight in 3 or 4 sq. ft. to me is not good common sense.



I guess those 300 lbs. drivers using nylon belts are not safe

[Doc Bro]

even the SCCA PRO understands that if you penalize a car you do it in smaller increments. To hit us all at once then make us put all this weight in 3 or 4 sq. ft. to me is not good common sense. If you want to hit us 1st with a 100# then see if what does, then add weight as required, to me this is a common sense approach.
dj
[/b]

DJ

The "rewards weight " is an entirely different thing and cannot be included in this debate.

Secondly, adding 100 lbs on three different occasions will further make the e36 guys feel (and rightfully so) targeted and will undoubtedly further fuel their rage.

Lastly, if you are going to put 300 lbs in 3-4 sq ft on your floorboard you really need to do more homework. How about a cool suit, accusump, spare tire, "tow hooks", full tank, big stainless exhaust? Do I need to keep going?

Is the sky falling or is it just me??????

R

[Ron Earp]

their rage.

Lastly, if you are going to put 300 lbs in 3-4 sq ft on your floorboard you really need to do more homework. How about a cool suit, accusump, spare tire, "tow hooks", full tank, big stainless exhaust? Do I need to keep going?

[/b]

As I mentioned about 20 posts ago, putting 300lbs of tungsten in the car is about 6"x6"x11" of space - plently left for all the things you mention. And it isn't a rare super expensive material either, it is fairly cheap.

If people spent as much time figured out how to put weight in their car as they did plumbing all the other things, making it faster, getting more out of the engine then adding weight wouldn't be a problem. Instead they like to say how it CAN'T be done, instead of figuring out how it can be done. But, there again, it is weight and something they don't want, so barriers pop up immediately.

[Doc Bro]

As I mentioned about 20 posts ago, putting 300lbs of tungsten in the car is about 6"x6"x11" of space - plently left for all the things you mention. And it isn't a rare super expensive material either, it is fairly cheap.

If people spent as much time figured out how to put weight in their car as they did plumbing all the other things, making it faster, getting more out of the engine then adding weight wouldn't be a problem. Instead they like to say how it CAN'T be done, instead of figuring out how it can be done. But, there again, it is weight and something they don't want, so barriers pop up immediately.
[/b]

Ron,

Point noted about the tungsten (wolfram ) but who in their right mind would take 300 lbs of add on's and elect to simply carry a block of anything around?

In regards to your second paragraph Ron, I totally agree.

"whether you say you can or you can't, either way you're right"

R

[dj10]

DJ

The "rewards weight " is an entirely different thing and cannot be included in this debate.

Secondly, adding 100 lbs on three different occasions will further make the e36 guys feel (and rightfully so) targeted and will undoubtedly further fuel their rage.

Lastly, if you are going to put 300 lbs in 3-4 sq ft on your floorboard you really need to do more homework. How about a cool suit, accusump, spare tire, "tow hooks", full tank, big stainless exhaust? Do I need to keep going?

Is the sky falling or is it just me??????

R
[/b]

LOL Rob, adding 100# is anything but a reward. I would have thought adding additional 100# weights is a good way to monitor the cars performance just in case someone is wrong and 300# is too much. It wouldn't bother me to do it this way. Lastly, I won't dump 300#'s of anything on my passanger floor...period. I'd like to see this SIR through if I could.
dj

[zracre]

seems like we are going in a SIRcle...lets just see where it pans out...i still thik it is a big mistake but we cant do anything about it until some results are posted and some bigwigs make decisions on it.

[robits325is]

Just another example as to why you can't use results. Selective use to support your cause.

Rob, you quote close racing in the NE in 2004. That was with UNRESTRICTED E36's. That year at the ARRC, the car you ran neck and neck with (RX-7) in your E36 was 2 seconds off the pace at RA to the unrestricted Bimmers - and was the top non-Bmw at the race.
[/b]

Andy - those were Jeffs comments. (Not sure if you are keeping stats on who is making comments)

[MMiskoe]

Hey guys who were doing the testing.

So you had a couple of data points out of line. Big deal it happens, you'll figure out why, or just dismiss those points. That's why you do multiple runs on the same test.

In the mean time any chance of at least describing what & how you tested? That is what was asked for at the start of this awful thread. I don't think anyone actually asked for 6 F'ing pages of banter about what's right for the E36's.



Take the "F" out of "right answer" to this problem.

Matt

[Knestis]

Part of the reason some folks are having a hard time getting their heads around this issue, is they just can't give up the idea that race results should drive the specification process.

PLEASE - those of you who DO understand this: Do NOT get sucked into playing that game, stooping to using one set of selectively chosen results to argue points being argued with other selectively chosen results. To engage in this kind of strategy is NOT HELPFUL to the cause.

ITAC members particularly - you've worked WAY too hard and accomplished more in the last two years than anyone has in the last 20, making the PCA process a reality. Every time you get conned into playing the results rationale card, you put all of that at risk. SIRs are evidence of how fragile your recent success is.

K

[Bill Miller]

Part of the reason some folks are having a hard time getting their heads around this issue, is they just can't give up the idea that race results should drive the specification process.

PLEASE - those of you who DO understand this: Do NOT get sucked into playing that game, stooping to using one set of selectively chosen results to argue points being argued with other selectively chosen results. To engage in this kind of strategy is NOT HELPFUL to the cause.

ITAC members particularly - you've worked WAY too hard and accomplished more in the last two years than anyone has in the last 20, making the PCA process a reality. Every time you get conned into playing the results rationale card, you put all of that at risk. SIRs are evidence of how fragile your recent success is.

K
[/b]

Kirk,

I agree w/ you, but how do you play that w/ a rule that pretty much says you have to look at results before you can implement a restrictor?

[Joe Harlan]

Kirk,

I agree w/ you, but how do you play that w/ a rule that pretty much says you have to look at results before you can implement a restrictor?
[/b]

You change the stinkin rule....Bill. If said car makes X amount of power outside the class index then restrictor applies. 220chp maybe should be the magic number.

[Knestis]

I don't know if that clause was actually invoked, Bill. The PCA realignment was happening - without evident "careful review of actual racing performance" of all of the make/models involved - and the same process should have been applied to the e36. This could all have been done (hell, MUST have been done) under "Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a 'performance compensation adjustment' shall be made."

K

[Bill Miller]

I don't know if that clause was actually invoked, Bill. The PCA realignment was happening - without evident "careful review of actual racing performance" of all of the make/models involved - and the same process should have been applied to the e36. This could all have been done (hell, MUST have been done) under "Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a 'performance compensation adjustment' shall be made."

K
[/b]

Kirk,

Do I understand you correctly in that you're saying that you can use a restrictor w/o reviewing actual racing performance (i.e. results)? If that's the case, I'm interested in the analysis of the rule that allows it.

Joe,

I have no problem w/ that. But the rule needs to be changed before you deviate from it. Otherwise, you've set aside the rule. BTW, your change would mean that the Supra would have gotten a restrictor (and a corresponding reduction in weight). I'd have much less problem w/ the SIR had that been the case.

[Joe Harlan]

Kirk,

Do I understand you correctly in that you're saying that you can use a restrictor w/o reviewing actual racing performance (i.e. results)? If that's the case, I'm interested in the analysis of the rule that allows it.

Joe,

I have no problem w/ that. But the rule needs to be changed before you deviate from it. Otherwise, you've set aside the rule. BTW, your change would mean that the Supra would have gotten a restrictor (and a corresponding reduction in weight). I'd have much less problem w/ the SIR had that been the case.
[/b]

Bill, I assume you will sign on to the request I am sending in for the Supra?