SIR TEST RESULTS

[MikeBlaszczak]

Mike,

Do you even read what you're typing? As Andy said, don't look for sympathy from too many people over this. You want a car that runs at the front w/o putting the time and money into developing both the car and the driver. Nobody else gets that kind of break. That's another reason that ALL cars should be treated the same.
[/b]

Do you even think about what other people have written before you fire off an acerbic response in return? Or are you so sure you have all the answers that you have nothing to learn from anyone else's opinon, and just go straight to the flaming?

What basis would you possibly have to assert that I haven't developed myself as a driver? That's as pompous and rude as it is wrong. Post like yours, focused on rhetoric and insults, lacking a desire to understand the point of view of others, are what make extracting real information from this forum so difficult.

Is it just that you're too ineloquent to express your opinion adequately that you have to resort to challenging my ability as a driver?

Back to the issue at hand: of course the BMWs aren't as prepared and are still competitive, and are overdogs when prepared to the limits (or beyond). They're more than twenty years newer than some of the cars they're running against. Twenty years! The Datsun guys I talk to aren't upset about spending time or money working on prep. They're more worried about getting parts to keep the things running in the first place. (Aside from the introduction of the 240Z, other memorable events of 1969 include the moon landing, the final public performance of the Beatles, and the Boeing 747 made its maiden voyage.)

Most of the E30's and Integras I race against aren't aggressively prepared, either. Sure enough, the ones that are beat me.

I think the classification problems the SCCA is having are caused by the lack of a plan to face progress. Newer models enter ITS every year. Those new models are, at a baseline, better prepared than the older cars in the class. This is going to keep happening—it's progress, and it is undeniable.

Successful organizations plan ahead to deal with progress. After all, it's forseeable that newer cars would out-perform older cars; that they'd have a higher performance potential, at least, and therefore be able to give closer to optimal results with less tweaking. Progress eventually includes abandoning the old and focusing on the new. If there are cars that are too slow to be in the class, let's move them to another class. Or move the newer cars to their own class where they can enjoy their competition without intefering with those who haven't moved on. Perhaps restricting modifications is a good idea; instead of an SIR, why not force the E36es to keep their stock air box?

Instead of hampering progress with weight penalties and intake restrictors, why not let the sport track progress?

[Joe Harlan]

Back to the issue at hand: of course the BMWs aren't as prepared and are still competitive, and are overdogs when prepared to the limits (or beyond). They're more than twenty years newer than some of the cars they're running against. Twenty years! The Datsun guys I talk to aren't upset about spending time or money working on prep. They're more worried about getting parts to keep the things running in the first place. (Aside from the introduction of the 240Z, other memorable events of 1969 include the moon landing, the final public performance of the Beatles, and the Boeing 747 made its maiden voyage.)

Most of the E30's and Integras I race against aren't aggressively prepared, either. Sure enough, the ones that are beat me.



[/b]

Mike, I am not sre which 240Z guys you are talking to but since I build engines for about every 240 in the PNW I think you are wrong. I don't know of a single one that isn't tired of seeing marginally prepared BMW's kicking their butts. The fact that 240z's are 35 years old doesn't make them a bad car and I don't understand your elitist attitude toward them. If a class is properly balanced there is no reason that multiple marques shouldn't competitive. You have admitted to having a wrecking yard bottom end and a fresh head with a stock exhaust manifold on your ride. You are beating cars that have 5 to 8 k in an engine every 2nd year. These cars have 2500 dollar exhaust system and run 800 bucks worth of new tires every other weekend to keep up with your underdeveloped BMW that if I remember correct is running on toyo tires and likely getting 4 to 5 weekendds out of them. This adjustment was not done because Mike B. owns a BMW, it was done tobring balance back to one of the best classes in SCCA. You are lucky in the fact that since you race with ICSCC and you can always just run your car in CP or DP and not change a thing.

[MikeBlaszczak]

Mike, I am not sre which 240Z guys you are talking to but since I build engines for about every 240 in the PNW I think you are wrong. I don't know of a single one that isn't tired of seeing marginally prepared BMW's kicking their butts.[/b]

Then you must know Jack and Lincoln Burns, right? I've raced pretty closely with them. Their downfall was crashing too much, not my car being an overdog. When they stayed on the track, we raced well. They usually won at PIR (their home track) and I usually won at SIR (my home track).

Skip Yocom? We've had a great time racing together when Skip has had his car running right, and during our long conversations he's never said anything to me at all about being frustrated with my car's preparedness level or his inability to keep up. In fact, he's specifically who I'm thinking of when I think about a Z driver coming over to shake my hand after a race. He's a great sport.

How about Ron Tanner? He hands it to me every time we race--pretty severely, in fact. The only time I recall managing to beat him was when he badly overcooked the chicane at PIR and couldn't get back in the race. Given that record, I can't imagine that he's complaining about my beating him all the time.

Looking at the 2005 results for the PNW region, here's how the ITS entries went:

Race #1: two 944s, though only one started
Race #2: five 944s
Race #3: three 944s
Race #4: three 944s
Race #5: two 944s
Race #6: Just one 944
Race #7: Two 944s

There's no BMWs there. In fact, there aren't any Z cars in the first place.

The story is the same for the 2005 season in the Oregon region:

Race #1: A 240Z beat an RX-7.
Race #2: Only one 240Z
Race #3: A 240Z beat an BMW. (But I'm pretty sure this BMW is an E30.) From 3rd place, it's a 944, two Z cars in a row, and another 944.
Race #4: Five 240Z cars, no other marques
Race #5: Just one ITS car. It's a Z.
Race #6: One 240Z.
Race #7: A single 240Z.
Race #8: Only one 944.
Race #9: A Mazda RX7. A 944 entered, but DNS.

There's only one BMW car, and it finished behind a 240Z. Will's best time in his E30 was about 0.900 seconds slower than the Z car. No other BMWs showed up all year.

Who is it that you're thinking of, Joe?

The fact that 240z's are 35 years old doesn't make them a bad car and I don't understand your elitist attitude toward them. [/b]

Nope. It just makes 'em old cars.

You are beating cars that have 5 to 8 k in an engine every 2nd year. These cars have 2500 dollar exhaust system and run 800 bucks worth of new tires[/b]

My last engine was right in the middle of that range, and my tyre budget is within 10%. I think I got four races out of a set last year -- on my rains.

This adjustment was not done because Mike B. owns a BMW, it was done tobring balance back to one of the best classes in SCCA. You are lucky in the fact that since you race with ICSCC and you can always just run your car in CP or DP and not change a thing.
[/b]

Indeed, I am fortunate for that. I'll probably end up in RS and SPM this year instead of ITS and CP.

[Joe Harlan]

Then you must know Jack and Lincoln Burns, right? I've raced pretty closely with them. Their downfall was crashing too much, not my car being an overdog. When they stayed on the track, we raced well. They usually won at PIR (their home track) and I usually won at SIR (my home track).

Skip Yocom? We've had a great time racing together when Skip has had his car running right, and during our long conversations he's never said anything to me at all about being frustrated with my car's preparedness level or his inability to keep up. In fact, he's specifically who I'm thinking of when I think about a Z driver coming over to shake my hand after a race. He's a great sport.

How about Ron Tanner? He hands it to me every time we race--pretty severely, in fact. The only time I recall managing to beat him was when he badly overcooked the chicane at PIR and couldn't get back in the race. Given that record, I can't imagine that he's complaining about my beating him all the time.

Looking at the 2005 results for the PNW region, here's how the ITS entries went:

Race #1: two 944s, though only one started
Race #2: five 944s
Race #3: three 944s
Race #4: three 944s
Race #5: two 944s
Race #6: Just one 944
Race #7: Two 944s

There's no BMWs there. In fact, there aren't any Z cars in the first place.

The story is the same for the 2005 season in the Oregon region:

Race #1: A 240Z beat an RX-7.
Race #2: Only one 240Z
Race #3: A 240Z beat an BMW. (But I'm pretty sure this BMW is an E30.) From 3rd place, it's a 944, two Z cars in a row, and another 944.
Race #4: Five 240Z cars, no other marques
Race #5: Just one ITS car. It's a Z.
Race #6: One 240Z.
Race #7: A single 240Z.
Race #8: Only one 944.
Race #9: A Mazda RX7. A 944 entered, but DNS.

There's only one BMW car, and it finished behind a 240Z. Will's best time in his E30 was about 0.900 seconds slower than the Z car. No other BMWs showed up all year.

Who is it that you're thinking of, Joe?
Nope. It just makes 'em old cars.
My last engine was right in the middle of that range, and my tyre budget is within 10%. I think I got four races out of a set last year -- on my rains.

Indeed, I am fortunate for that. I'll probably end up in RS and SPM this year instead of ITS and CP.
[/b]

Mike, I know every one of those cars considering I built every engine in them, I built both of the Burns cars from the ground up, I have Skips car in my shop and Tanners new engine on the bench. BTW Skip is to good a sport to come over and say anything one way or another. Your car is really the least of anyone's issues but it will become one should you decide to actually build the thing to it's fullest. Why do you think it's OK for you to compete with cars that are fully prepped in an underdeveloped car?


The point I think you miss is this adjustment is not about you. The timing has nothing to do with you. The fact that you don't see a problem with the car is really not my problem. I won't respond any further here because I don't want to make this about you. This is about a car that was misclassed in the beginning and nothing more. This is also a change in a rule no different than any other adjustment and while the timing may suck for you SCCA is a national club and their are races going on year round so somebody would have hated the timing no matter what.

[mlytle]

This is also a change in a rule no different than any other adjustment and while the timing may suck for you SCCA is a national club and their are races going on year round so somebody would have hated the timing no matter what.
[/b]

incorrect. if the rule change had put forth a proper lead time for compliance and been effective with the start of a new year, then there could have been no complaints about the timing.

a few weeks of lead time for a major change that occurs mid-year? heck yeah there will be folks hating the timing.

[lateapex911]

....Indeed, I am fortunate for that. I'll probably end up in RS and SPM this year instead of ITS and CP.
[/b]

Mike, I am curious, why?

Because the car will, in theory, be required to be a top prep car to run at the front?

Or, you don't have the (choose one or all) the time, the money, the inclination to acheive the top prep level and you don't like running anywhere but the front?

Or you think the whole thing is unfair to the entire class and won't participate ?

Or, ?????

Not understanding this.....

I really want to understand the reasoning behind such a decision.