SIR TEST RESULTS

[Andy Bettencourt]

I love the attempt to divorce ITAC from any responsibility. It's hillarious. [/b]

Funny, Ron is actually hoding the ITAC responsible in the post you quoted.

The ITAC makes NO decisions. We recommend. The CRB has indeed relied on us more in recent years to determine overall category direction, but the CRB and BoD are the decision and policy makers. The implementation of the FPR in 2005 was a CRB move (not introduced by the ITAC), and the SIR was an OPTION, not the primary recommendation in 2006. As a point of fact, the 'restrictor plate' language in the PCA clause in the ITCS was inserted (and developed) by the CRB, not the ITAC.

I for one, am tired of taking misdirected pot-shots from the ill-informed on this topic. We put ourselves out here to help people understand, debate, and relay ideas and opinions. No problem answering the hard questions with people who disagree, but write your letter if you have an opinion.

Can't quite remember any from a "DoubleD".

AB

IMHO the system of rules authorization is broken - why does something from the ITAC require approval from a board that is completely uninterested in IT racing? Let them govern their fiefdom of aging Britsh Prod cars and leave us alone.

R [/b]

Ron,

If I felt like the CRB didn't care, or was uninterested in Improved Touring, I wouldn't be volunteering my time on the ITAC.

AB

[Ron Earp]

Ron,

If I felt like the CRB didn't care, or was uninterested in Improved Touring, I wouldn't be volunteering my time on the ITAC.

AB
[/b]

I hear you, and I believe you and the others. I don't know any CRB members, but my impression from the entire system (and my impression is mainly formed from this forum and the SM forum) is that far more time is spent on Prod, Touring, and other forms of club racing than IT. Despite the fact, and it is fact because you can simply look at registration numbers for regional and in some cases national events, IT has a lot more entries than the other classes all together. I'm with you, if I didn't care I wouldn't spend time writing on a forum like this either.

And yes, ITAC responsible - but only for allowing the CRB the fredoom to choose. Why give them a choice? The ITAC knew what was right, they should've held firm and submitted the weight recommendation. If the CRB didn't go for it, but did with XX other cars that were adjusted at the same time as per ITAC recommendations, then you knew the CRB bled blue, white, and black.

R

[Bill Miller]

And yes, ITAC responsible - but only for allowing the CRB the fredoom to choose. Why give them a choice? The ITAC knew what was right, they should've held firm and submitted the weight recommendation. If the CRB didn't go for it, but did with XX other cars that were adjusted at the same time as per ITAC recommendations, then you knew the CRB bled blue, white, and black.[/b]

Ron,

That's pretty much what the did last year. IIRC, the ITAC asked for weight, and was given a FPR instead. Seems pretty black and white (and I guess blue) to me.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And yes, ITAC responsible - but only for allowing the CRB the fredoom to choose. Why give them a choice? The ITAC knew what was right, they should've held firm and submitted the weight recommendation. If the CRB didn't go for it, but did with XX other cars that were adjusted at the same time as per ITAC recommendations, then you knew the CRB bled blue, white, and black.

R [/b]

This is where you aren't listening. The ITAC does not have the power to give the CRB any 'freedom to choose'. They can do what they want, when they want, within their policies and procedures. They don't have to take ANY recommendation the ITAC puts forth. ANY. We ADVISE, they DECIDE.

Again, I do not believe the current CRB bleeds anything other than blood. If I did, there is no way I would be doing this stuff.

AB

[Ron Earp]

Sorry Andy if I have my info wrong. I'm listening, but just not clear on how things happened. My impression was that the ITAC said "weight" or "SIR" and the CRB said "SIR".

From your writing it looks like the ITAC said "weight" and they said "SIR".

If this is how it went down then heck, it would cause you to lose some faith in the CRB even listening to the ITAC.

Still, the ITAC is doing a good job despite the flak and mess.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sorry Andy if I have my info wrong. I'm listening, but just not clear on how things happened. My impression was that the ITAC said "weight" or "SIR" and the CRB said "SIR".

From your writing it looks like the ITAC said "weight" and they said "SIR".

If this is how it went down then heck, it would cause you to lose some faith in the CRB even listening to the ITAC.

Still, the ITAC is doing a good job despite the flak and mess. [/b]

You are right in this:

The ITAC said weight or an SIR - first choice weight.

BUT:

The CRB could have said SIR even if we said weight only. That is the point. We didn't empower them in ANY WAY by suggesting 2 choices. Period.

When a decision goes against our recommendations, *I* personally make an effort to understand why they did what they did and then be able to explain it to any who asks.

AB

[lateapex911]

I love the attempt to divorce ITAC from any responsibility. It's hillarious.
[/b]

What, are you a selective reader??? What part of "The ITAC made a mistake by...." is unclear????

You certainly have NO idea what went on on the con calls, and we on the ITAC have no idea what goes on in the CRB discussions!

Here's the simple version for you:

E36 needs a check, it doesn't fit the process. ITAC wants weight. CRB specs a flat plate. (Dyno results show the effect was very very minor)

Round 2- E36 STILL doesn't meet the process....ITAC wants weight, but discusses new SIR technology as a 2nd choice. CRB decides on SIR. Timeline is very short. Discussion ensues, timeline is retracted, and testing is done, sponsored by the CRB, with ITAC involvement. The ITAC wants a very clear understanding of the results so as to make their recommendation.

The CRB is responsible for all category decisions, and oversees the fitment of the categories as a whole. The ITAC is responsible for the category rules and classing recommendations, but the CRB is the acting power. They do as they see fit.

In this case, they decided on the SIR for a variety of reasons.

I'm not trying to accept or pin blame, becuase A- we are all trying to do what's best, and B- There is NO decision yet!!!!!

[Knestis]

AB,
I thought things were going to be hashed out on MONDAY. Tomorrow is March 1. I bet you have been working on getting your miata ready, the BMW guys are in limbo. ...[/b]

Wotta crappy thing to say. ITAC - go really slow on the decision and blame this comment whenever someone asks.

K

[Bill Miller]

Wotta crappy thing to say. ITAC - go really slow on the decision and blame this comment whenever someone asks.

K
[/b]

Problem w/ that approach is that it actually benefits ther person that made the comment (gets to still run his E36 w/ the FPR from '05).

[dj10]

Problem w/ that approach is that it actually benefits ther person that made the comment (gets to still run his E36 w/ the FPR from '05).
[/b]

Nothing wrong with the FRP, just don't let us bevel the spacer plate and it will reduce hp.

[lateapex911]

Wotta crappy thing to say. ITAC - go really slow on the decision and blame this comment whenever someone asks.

K
[/b]

We'd love to! But we don't operate that way. We try to make each car fit the procedure and give all letters and people their fair due.

But as you can see, the comment didn't "resonate" nicely with me...

(and yes, the first sentence was a joke...)

[dj10]

What, are you a selective reader??? What part of "The ITAC made a mistake by...." is unclear????

You certainly have NO idea what went on on the con calls, and we on the ITAC have no idea what goes on in the CRB discussions!

Here's the simple version for you:

E36 needs a check, it doesn't fit the process. ITAC wants weight. CRB specs a flat plate. (Dyno results show the effect was very very minor)

Round 2- E36 STILL doesn't meet the process....ITAC wants weight, but discusses new SIR technology as a 2nd choice. CRB decides on SIR. Timeline is very short. Discussion ensues, timeline is retracted, and testing is done, sponsored by the CRB, with ITAC involvement. The ITAC wants a very clear understanding of the results so as to make their recommendation.

The CRB is responsible for all category decisions, and oversees the fitment of the categories as a whole. The ITAC is responsible for the category rules and classing recommendations, but the CRB is the acting power. They do as they see fit.

In this case, they decided on the SIR for a variety of reasons.

I'm not trying to accept or pin blame, becuase A- we are all trying to do what's best, and B- There is NO decision yet!!!!!
[/b]

Jake,
Are there going to be future tests with the E36 & SIR's? If not, is the decision in the CRB's hands now? The suspense is killing me. Jake from what you have seen, do you believe in SIR technology? Just want your opinion.
Thanks

[lateapex911]

jeeez. talk about being put on the spot....

Is there further testing to be done? Last I heard, yes.

Do I believe in SIR technology? Yes.

Good thing you phrased your question that way...

[dj10]

jeeez. talk about being put on the spot....

Is there further testing to be done? Last I heard, yes.

Do I believe in SIR technology? Yes.

Good thing you phrased your question that way...
[/b]

I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I wanted honest answers to some honest questions, and you were a person close to the action.
Thanks

[DoubleD]

Funny, Ron is actually hoding the ITAC responsible in the post you quoted.

The ITAC makes NO decisions. We recommend. The CRB has indeed relied on us more in recent years to determine overall category direction, but the CRB and BoD are the decision and policy makers. The implementation of the FPR in 2005 was a CRB move (not introduced by the ITAC), and the SIR was an OPTION, not the primary recommendation in 2006. As a point of fact, the 'restrictor plate' language in the PCA clause in the ITCS was inserted (and developed) by the CRB, not the ITAC.

I for one, am tired of taking misdirected pot-shots from the ill-informed on this topic. We put ourselves out here to help people understand, debate, and relay ideas and opinions. No problem answering the hard questions with people who disagree, but write your letter if you have an opinion.

Can't quite remember any from a "DoubleD".

AB



Ron,

If I felt like the CRB didn't care, or was uninterested in Improved Touring, I wouldn't be volunteering my time on the ITAC.

AB
[/b]

My response to you is your own words...

Mike,

First off, I personally appreciate the issues at hand. The timing is tough. The ITAC knows it and the CRB knows it. The CRB has heard the shouting and has verified agin with Finch that the 27mm SIR is the right size for the 220hp target.

Second, it is clear that you aren't fully up to speed on SIR technology. It is not simply a 66% reduction in airflow like a 27mm flat-plate would be. Two TOTALLY different technologies. When talking with "BMW Supplier" #1, who said the car wouldn't even run, it is clear that they also don't understand SIR technology, or it wasn't expalined to them properly. I can see how you could get that response if the question was "what is a 27mm restrictor plate gonna do to my power?" was the question.

Thirdly, where is the info that the second shop came up with? They tried the 27mm SIR and the results were bad? Where are they? Any interest in having them send the before and after results, plus a description of the parts they used to install the set-up? crb AT scca.com Simple.

Both vendors said the SCCA didn't do their homework? Haven't received any letter from anyone but Bimmerworld and they made no mention of having ANY experience with SIR's and no data or theory to support their skeptisism. The opposite is true with the CRB - they worked with Finch to size it and (yes, I know) in theory it (the SIR) doesn't care what application it is in.

We have ZERO letters from anyone telling us why 27mm is wrong, suggesting any 'corrections' in the context of SIR's, or helping us 'understand the issues'. Just complaints.

I will be the first one to stand up and say we screwed the pooch if the testing (which is scheduled now on an E36 and warmly accepted by anyone who actually has data) shows too much power is being taken away. I would hope all of the people who have said the CRB is crazy and the sizing is way low would stand up and say they over-reacted if/when the power numbers are correct. Frankly, if it's OVER-sized, ya'll will be the first ones to write in and say you are making too much than the target, right?

Again, I understand the timing sucks - and the perception it's a shot in the dark -but the CRB is ULTRA confident that this is sized right AND it's the right thing to do for the class/car.

AB
[/b]

It's time to stand up, Andy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's time to stand up, Andy. [/b]

Edit: Not worth it.

[Joe Harlan]

My response to you is your own words...
It's time to stand up, Andy.
[/b]

Stand up to what Dave? More abuse? If I was any of those guys I would just shut up and wait for the CRB to decide what they are doing? Why would anyone want to subject themselves to the crap these guys have is beyond me. There was not a single one of you guys worried about the cars you were running off with your under prepped and marginally driven overdogs in the past. I for one know that these guys are trying too hard to not over adjust here to protect the investments of these cars. I personally would have shot lower and adjusted up over a couple of seasons so be glad it was not me making the recommendations. GO build your car with the confidence that this group is being fair and if they target ends up low this group will be the first to start screaming including me.

Andy or any other ITAC member has nothing left to justify to you or anyone else so get off it.

It amazes me that there are like 30 other things really positive going on in IT and they are being completely overlooked.

It's been beat to death your gonna have to wait like the rest of us for the official response.

[mlytle]

There was not a single one of you guys worried about the cars you were running off with your under prepped and marginally driven overdogs in the past. [/b]

so now all bmw drivers suck and bring junk to the track to run everyone else off with? wtf? come on joe, that was uncalled for.

how about we revert this thread back to the original topic. sir results. instead of the page after page of bmw bashing, crb/itab bashing and process arguments it has degenerated into. those are the topics of endless other threads.

don't care what anyone thinks of the itac or crb
don't care if you feel there should be 300lbs of lead and be done with it
don't care if you think bmw drivers are whiners

do care about seeing the official results and assumptions of the sir testing. so far all i have seen elsewhere is large hp losses, way below the crb target for 27mm sir.

[dickita15]

so now all bmw drivers suck and bring junk to the track to run everyone else off with? wtf? come on joe, that was uncalled for.
[/b]

now I am sure you don't really think Joe was saying that, It would be refreshing howerver if when the "few" whiney guys carry on if some of the bmw drivers who get it would tell them to back off.

they complained about the short lead time. it was extended

they complained that there was not full testing. it is being tested

now they complain that the testing is taking to long.

[Joe Harlan]

now I am sure you don't really think Joe was saying that, It would be refreshing howerver if when the "few" whiney guys carry on if some of the bmw drivers who get it would tell them to back off.

they complained about the short lead time. it was extended

they complained that there was not full testing. it is being tested

now they complain that the testing is taking to long.
[/b]

Wow, this is hard to be PC....To a certain extent that's exactly what I was saying but i don't mean it as harsh as Mlytle makes it sound.

When the E36 showed up we knew it was gonna be a class killer. 30+ years of development on the Z car flushed with one classification. The Z car is maxed out ain't gonna get any faster. My comments are more about the car that shows up completely under developed and beats a well developed car and does it on toyo's to boot is just wrong. Then put a decent built car with a driver that can't find an apex to save his/her butt and it still beats a well prepped and driven 240z you get the same result.(frustrated drivers) Add to that a well driven well prepped car on good tires and you have the recipe to kill a class.

I understand the frustration but I don't understand the abuse on the guys that have worked hard to create fix that will in the end make the class healthy for all and in the end will be the most cost effective for those using it. I know that you all think your gonna develop around it but your not. I estimated that 300lbs over 10 races will run you an extra 6000 bucks in tires brakes wear and tear on the car. To me looking at the big picture if I spent a grand to make the SIR work it would be a 5k savings over weight in the first season alone.


PS I know the 240 can't last forever it is just an example I have 100's of hours of development in.