April SIR ruling

[e36its]

Send your concerns to the CRB. May be too late if you are against SIR's but at least you will be on record.
[/b]

It's a good suggestion, Andy. Here's the problem: I don't know what to think at this point.

If SIRs were shown to be all that we believed they would be, then they would be clearly preferable to weight -- because if I can't go, at least I could still stop and turn. If SIRs were proven to be a completely problematic and expensive PITA that doesn't let the car perform in a reasonable way, I'd be in favor of lead -- because at least the issues around making weight perform are well understood.

The issue is that I don't know which of these (or the myriad of possibilities in between) is the case. I don't have the cash to test out several permutations and see what makes the most sense, and to date I don't have the information that would show me what happens in the real world.

I'm kinda wishing I had bought that Spec Racer Ford...

tom

[Matt Rowe]

Well this has gone beyond ridiculous.

To the ITAC members present, thank you for your effort in developing the process, reccomending weight as the first choice for the BMW and assisting with the testing on the SIR. I'm sorry the CRB choose to go with the SIR Option. But above all please stop arguing about this topic. Until ALL the dyno information that was collected on SIR testing has been released, or the mythical transcripts, there is no new information to put forth. Without new data this is just a shouting match and half of the opposition apparently doesn't even understand how the ITAC/CRB process works.

To the BMW community that feel persecuted by Andy, give it a rest. We can see you don't have any facts, in fact it's obvious you don't even understand how the ITAC and CRB function. What you have is one dyno plot for an engine that obviously was not fully tuned accorrding to the AFR included. There are other dyno plots out there, get them from the CRB and put them ALL out in the open and then they we can discuss if they show due diligence or a anti BMW bias. As for half truths and fears of bias in the ITAC, it would appear that no one outside of your small world sees the same thing. The current ITAC has made huge strides forward in transparency and accessibility. Oh, and in the process we now have some of the strongest and most diverse IT fields ever.

To the more reasonable BMW owners, thank you for your patience and understanding as the CRB tinkers with your cars. I'm sorry you've had to endure several "adjustments" but it would appear most of you can see the value in rebalancing the class even if the repeated adjustments are more than any IT racer should have to endure. Hopefully this last change will set things right and we can all get back to complaing about turn signal stalks and washer bottles.

To the CRB, please provide the SIR test data assembled on this issue so that we can see all of the data points. Please feel encouraged to also include the reasoning behind the decisions with the uncensored data.

To everyone, arguing back and forth based on one data point and half truths and conspiracy theories is pointless. Give it a rest and get the facts and data but for god's sake until then shut up.

And for the record, I don't even race ITS so the only dog I have in this hunt is to make sure the progress being made in IT continues.

[Geo]

Well this has gone beyond ridiculous.

To the ITAC members present, thank you for your effort in developing the process, reccomending weight as the first choice for the BMW and assisting with the testing on the SIR. I'm sorry the CRB choose to go with the SIR Option. But above all please stop arguing about this topic. Until ALL the dyno information that was collected on SIR testing has been released, or the mythical transcripts, there is no new information to put forth. Without new data this is just a shouting match and half of the opposition apparently doesn't even understand how the ITAC/CRB process works.
[/b]

You're right Matt.

I'm done here.

[e36its]

You will find it in detail in the rediculous thread on Bimmerforums. Post 101.[/b]

Andy --

I took a look back through that thread (boy, was that a fun read!) and pulled up the formula. Could you check my work here?

stock hp * typical IT power gains (25%) * desired lb / weight (12.8-12.9) = process weight

Applying this to the E36:
189 * 1.25 * 12.8 = 3024
189 * 1.25 * 12.9 = 3078

The lead everyone has been bandying about (and most notably putting in avatar form) is 300 lbs, for a weight total of 3150 lbs. Is the extra 75 to 125 lbs the subjective adders?

tom

[Bill Miller]

Well this has gone beyond ridiculous.

To the ITAC members present, thank you for your effort in developing the process, reccomending weight as the first choice for the BMW and assisting with the testing on the SIR. I'm sorry the CRB choose to go with the SIR Option. But above all please stop arguing about this topic. Until ALL the dyno information that was collected on SIR testing has been released, or the mythical transcripts, there is no new information to put forth. Without new data this is just a shouting match and half of the opposition apparently doesn't even understand how the ITAC/CRB process works.

To the BMW community that feel persecuted by Andy, give it a rest. We can see you don't have any facts, in fact it's obvious you don't even understand how the ITAC and CRB function. What you have is one dyno plot for an engine that obviously was not fully tuned accorrding to the AFR included. There are other dyno plots out there, get them from the CRB and put them ALL out in the open and then they we can discuss if they show due diligence or a anti BMW bias. As for half truths and fears of bias in the ITAC, it would appear that no one outside of your small world sees the same thing. The current ITAC has made huge strides forward in transparency and accessibility. Oh, and in the process we now have some of the strongest and most diverse IT fields ever.

To the more reasonable BMW owners, thank you for your patience and understanding as the CRB tinkers with your cars. I'm sorry you've had to endure several "adjustments" but it would appear most of you can see the value in rebalancing the class even if the repeated adjustments are more than any IT racer should have to endure. Hopefully this last change will set things right and we can all get back to complaing about turn signal stalks and washer bottles.

To the CRB, please provide the SIR test data assembled on this issue so that we can see all of the data points. Please feel encouraged to also include the reasoning behind the decisions with the uncensored data.

To everyone, arguing back and forth based on one data point and half truths and conspiracy theories is pointless. Give it a rest and get the facts and data but for god's sake until then shut up.

And for the record, I don't even race ITS so the only dog I have in this hunt is to make sure the progress being made in IT continues.
[/b]

Very well said Matt!

Andy (and others), guys like Ball Sack and Double D aren't worth the effort that you've expended responding to them.

[Ron Earp]

The lead everyone has been bandying about (and most notably putting in avatar form) is 300 lbs, for a weight total of 3150 lbs. Is the extra 75 to 125 lbs the subjective adders?
tom
[/b]

Like this? I bet most of the drivers wish they had pushed for and gotten the lead - 200, 225, 250, or 300lbs - they would be better off.

I feel it is a sad day for IT. A beginning grassroots class and racing program, is implimenting SIR technology that doesn't belong here, IMHO. Can't wait to see how SIRs work on dual carb motors.

Good luck to the BMW group and hate to see you have to work all this out. And yes, that is sincere - I'm not an SIR fan.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy --

I took a look back through that thread (boy, was that a fun read!) and pulled up the formula. Could you check my work here?

stock hp * typical IT power gains (25%) * desired lb / weight (12.8-12.9) = process weight

Applying this to the E36:
189 * 1.25 * 12.8 = 3024
189 * 1.25 * 12.9 = 3078

The lead everyone has been bandying about (and most notably putting in avatar form) is 300 lbs, for a weight total of 3150 lbs. Is the extra 75 to 125 lbs the subjective adders?

tom [/b]

Your math is good, except it's old numbers. That is what would have been done if the car were classed today with no prior knowledge of power out. Some cars make 20% more, some make 30% more, some exceed 35% more in IT trim. The 1st gen RX-7 in ITA exceeds 40% improvment! When numbers are known, they are placed in the process. This allows for a much more accurate weight setting.

The E36 can exceed 30% increases (about 201whp using a 18% loss factor if you are playing at home), so that is used.

189 * 1.3 * 12.9 = 3169

This is before consideration for the adders. Adders are considerations for traits that are significant vs. the rest of the class. The tranny ratios are perfect, the brakes are large (but that is mitigated in my mind by the weight at this point) and the torque numbers are off the charts. It is very reasonable to assume 3150-3200 is a fair weight given the process all the other cars have to go through.

Now lets say 3200. That is 350lbs more than 2850. That is a HUGE number on the surface. Proponents of weight will tell you that isn't much more than curb weight. Plenty of cars in IT run over their curb weight, some way more than the E36 would at 3200, both in actual weight and especially in percentage. Proponents will tell you that everyone else has to run at process weight so why not the E36? Proponents will also counter that large increase with the fact that the car was never even near it's proper weight to begin with.

Detractors of weight will tell you that 350lbs is way too much. Safety always comes up. Ballast concerns fly around. Consumable costs are cited.

Proponents of the SIR will tell you that 350lbs is just too much. They will tell you that it doesn't affect driveability like a FPR. They will tell you that, while the initial cost of the product and the testing is real, the cost savings in tires, brakes, etc will easily offset the up-front costs.

Detractors of the SIR will say it hurts the underprepared guys the worst. They will say that the technology doesn't belong in IT and is against the philosophy of the class. They will tell you how it isn't fair to a guy who has $10K plus in his motor who is marginalized to 185whp. Timing comes up. Testing comes up. Placing it on other cars comes up.

The whole issue has to do with the 2850 weight. Right now, the E36 is the only car in all of Improved Touring that sits at a weight well under it's process total. If the car is to stay at 2850, the power has to come down. If the car is to return to an unresticted form, the weight has to go up.

The CRB decided that keeping the weight stable and adding this technonolgy would be the best in the long run. YMMV.

AB

[Bob Dowie]

Gentleman,

The ITAC members are doing a good job answering your questions and I'll be making a more detailed post to better explain our position on this. But the simple answer is we (the CR had a choice of adding a lot of weight or restricting the power. Since the car was already classed and there were no reports that the current weight couldn't be reached and believing that cars of similer weight make for better racing. We went with the restrictor.

The SIR was chosen over a much smaller flat plate for a couple of reasons but mostly to maintain the drivability and throttle response that makes a good race car. The current 29mm size pulls approximately 20 HP off the peak, bringing the E-36 within the classification proccess in use today.

There is no intention to make the E36 an uncompetive or undesirable race car. The only goal is to get this car classed where we can congratulate the BMW racers for a job well done without the under tone that their success is a result of a favorable classification instead of the hard work and skill of the team and driver.

Thanks, Bob

[Harry Balszac]

Maybe if I type slower........

They are not ours to give out. Ask the CRB for them. In the absence of my authority to get you any 'transcripts', I have offered to publically give you my stance on any BMW issue - and you have refused to ask any questions. Afraid you won't get an answer that paints me as the devil?

Yikes.
[/b]

Do you mean to tell me that the ITAC is not in a position to share its own proceedings & deliberations with the great unwashed paying membership?

I guess Geo had it right: we may not be "entitiled" to them, eh?

Andy, frankly, I am not interested in your opinions of BMW's, just as you are not interested in my opinions of RX-7's. The bigger issue, which I sure hope you are not trying to dodge, is my desire to see if this process has been on the up & up. And I am by no means alone.

Thanks for the background. I didn't realize Corporate Turnaround Consultants had such a sense of humor to sign up as Harry Balszac.
All of this frustration and uproar over 1 dyno sheet? One? That's it? And he, what, lost 19rwhp? If someone told me we'll take 19rwhp or add 300lbs you bet your ass I'd take the 19rwhp loss. I don't see how that dyno sheet proves/disproves anything. It's a bad datapoint to base an argument on being that the baseline wasn't a good sample to begin with. And I don't even see what's so bad about it. To me that restrictor is still a gift. You'd be much worse off with the weight.

s
[/b]

LOL...good one, Steve. Yes, even us boring corporate types sometimes exhibit senses of humor. Although I am not sure why you found it necessary to root out what I do for a living....or even found it necessary to earlier demand my real name. Smokescreen, anyone?

As for your other point: The SIR was sold to us as a done deal, that the SCCA did not feel needed any testing or proof of concept on an E36. It was also sold to us as not having ANY effect with engines making less than 200+hp. Both of these promises have turned out ot be bullschit, and now (as expected), the backpedaling and vendor-blaming has begun. Yes, I am upset about one dyno test. Bill has a Stickley motor, but no MoTeC, and he can't get even over 160hp.

And you are now doing what? Somehow trying to make that not seem bad? Steve, 160hp is so uncompetitive--whether in a BMW or an RX-7--as to be laughable.

Do you actually read what you post before you post it?

Come on...dig for more personal info on me...LOL.

Gentleman,

The ITAC members are doing a good job answering your questions and I'll be making a more detailed post to better explain our position on this. But the simple answer is we (the CR had a choice of adding a lot of weight or restricting the power. Since the car was already classed and there were no reports that the current weight couldn't be reached and believing that cars of similer weight make for better racing. We went with the restrictor.

The SIR was chosen over a much smaller flat plate for a couple of reasons but mostly to maintain the drivability and throttle response that makes a good race car. The current 29mm size pulls approximately 20 HP off the peak, bringing the E-36 within the classification proccess in use today.

There is no intention to make the E36 an uncompetive or undesirable race car. The only goal is to get this car classed where we can congratulate the BMW racers for a job well done without the under tone that their success is a result of a favorable classification instead of the hard work and skill of the team and driver.

Thanks, Bob
[/b]

Bob, will you release

1) all tests with all SIR sizes?

2) all transcripts of ITAC meeting in which Andy participated & this BMW SIR issue was discussed?

Thanks!

[dj10]

As I recall, we pushed it out with a spacer about 3", but it didn't resolve the issues. As time was limited, we mounted the AFM upstream and left it there for the rest of the runs. It will be interesting to hear of your results. What dyno type will you be using ?
[/b]

Jake, I was afraid that time might have hindered your testing since time was limited. I have Dyno Jet lined up to test on and the people seem knowledgable. Champ (my friend who owns C & G Performance), knows Dave Finch from his days racing GT3 National, will be talking to Dave. Hopefully I'll get some clarifications on proper placement.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, frankly, I am not interested in your opinions of BMW's, just as you are not interested in my opinions of RX-7's. The bigger issue, which I sure hope you are not trying to dodge, is my desire to see if this process has been on the up & up. And I am by no means alone.[/b]

In the absense of the transcripts, I have offered to tell you my position on any issue so that you can understand some things you don't. You don't want to know because the facts aren't what you care about. All you want to know is when I vote and when I abstain. I will tell you this: In 2005, there was no need for my vote, it was unanimous. In 2006, during the last con-call (Feb), I voted on the SIR issue - and I remain passionate about my vote. The ITAC was virtually split down the middle on the topic - and as such, had no official recommendation other than we were divided.

Another note on proceedure. The Advisory committies have a private web-board where all the incoming letters are organized and logged. We get a chance to read them and debate them, via computer, for up to a month before they actually hit our con-call agenda. Most issues are put to bed well before the 10 people get on the phone. Some are not.

As for your other point: The SIR was sold to us as a done deal, that the SCCA did not feel needed any testing or proof of concept on an E36. It was also sold to us as not having ANY effect with engines making less than 200+hp. Both of these promises have turned out ot be bullschit, and now (as expected), the backpedaling and vendor-blaming has begun. Yes, I am upset about one dyno test. Bill has a Stickley motor, but no MoTeC, and he can't get even over 160hp. [/b]

Not sure why you keep harping on this. Nobody has disputed the fact that some qualities of the SIR were not as advertised. Being upset at the dyno test is very short sighted. Are you telling all of us that 180whp is the max an ITS E36 is going to run? (Put on your straight face) I don't care whose name is attached to the motor, if it only makes 180, something is wrong, very wrong. Are you disputing this?

[Harry Balszac]

Andy, my last post was to Bob. I hope he does the right thing.

[DoubleXL240Z]

I have some questions!!! First, and most imprtantly, I'm not here to flame/stab/accuse/ convict etc. anyone of anything!! I've been around scca/hsr/svra/pca as a mech. and fabricator for about 6 years and racing in general since the 80s on a trans am team. And most (read all) of the nonsense i have read on this forum or the BW forum has been a real turnoff.
I believe the goal was approx. 160 to 165hp, I'm not sure on this. Maybe 180. The only released(so Far) info has a 181 hp motor detuned or limited to 161 hp by a SIR. It is my understanding that the concept of a SIR is to limit air thus limiting hp. An engine basically being an air pump, limit air= limit hp. Now I realize that the A/F mixture was off by a considerable margin on the dyno graph. But, proper tuning may bring back 5-10hp. Bringin us back to 170ish. This doesn't quite add up though. In theory, X amount of air= X HP, and Y amount of air=Y HP. So with that being the case logic would dictate a 200hp( just a number) engine would be limited to the same 170 area.
Why, than wouldn't a number of approx.190-195 be the goal of the SIR. If a 2680 lb. RX7(fully developed) is pushing the 183-185HP envelope wouldn't simple math dictate a 2850 lb. at the same tune level be expected to produce in the 195 area. The RX numbers are dyno sheets I have seen by the way. Maybe I'm missing something.
As far as my stake in this is the fact that I am/was in the process of buying a E36 for conversion to a racecar. Iam supposed to pick up the car this weekend.
I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but it does not addup.
Andy, I truly appreciate your work, and everybody's work on this. But, I think you can understand most everyone frustration on this, and you have acknowleged that.
Maybe the jokes I hear about The SCCA( sports car club of asia) from the svra and hsr crowd are not that far off.
Sorry about that I'm getting riled up. I'm out!!

[e36its]

Your math is good, except it's old numbers. That is what would have been done if the car were classed today with no prior knowledge of power out. Some cars make 20% more, some make 30% more, some exceed 35% more in IT trim. The 1st gen RX-7 in ITA exceeds 40% improvment! When numbers are known, they are placed in the process. This allows for a much more accurate weight setting.

The E36 can exceed 30% increases (about 201whp using a 18% loss factor if you are playing at home), so that is used.

189 * 1.3 * 12.9 = 3169

This is before consideration for the adders. Adders are considerations for traits that are significant vs. the rest of the class. The tranny ratios are perfect, the brakes are large (but that is mitigated in my mind by the weight at this point) and the torque numbers are off the charts. It is very reasonable to assume 3150-3200 is a fair weight given the process all the other cars have to go through.
[/b]

Thanks for the explanation. It isn't really material to the discussion of the BMW SIR, but has any consideration been given to publishing the full set of inputs used to get process results? I would be inclined to reverse engineer the numbers from the new adjusted weight using all other cars in IT that meet the process as data points. Given that there are now two variables in play (adders and the percentage HP gain multiplier) the working backwards through the process seems difficult in my tiny caveman mind.

tom

[steve s]

don't know why all the non mazdas guys are complaining.can't you read between the lines.
that's why there's bmwcca did you ever hear of mazda club ?????.
when you sell that bmw buy a mazda and continue winning with SCCA.
p.s. that's why i drive a mazda
this is too easy i'm sounding like those immature posters on this site !!!!

[Harry Balszac]

Do you mean to tell me that the ITAC is not in a position to share its own proceedings & deliberations with the great unwashed paying membership?

I guess Geo had it right: we may not be "entitiled" to them, eh?

Andy, frankly, I am not interested in your opinions of BMW's, just as you are not interested in my opinions of RX-7's. The bigger issue, which I sure hope you are not trying to dodge, is my desire to see if this process has been on the up & up. And I am by no means alone.
LOL...good one, Steve. Yes, even us boring corporate types sometimes exhibit senses of humor. Although I am not sure why you found it necessary to root out what I do for a living....or even found it necessary to earlier demand my real name. Smokescreen, anyone?

As for your other point: The SIR was sold to us as a done deal, that the SCCA did not feel needed any testing or proof of concept on an E36. It was also sold to us as not having ANY effect with engines making less than 200+hp. Both of these promises have turned out ot be bullschit, and now (as expected), the backpedaling and vendor-blaming has begun. Yes, I am upset about one dyno test. Bill has a Stickley motor, but no MoTeC, and he can't get even over 160hp.

And you are now doing what? Somehow trying to make that not seem bad? Steve, 160hp is so uncompetitive--whether in a BMW or an RX-7--as to be laughable.

Do you actually read what you post before you post it?

Come on...dig for more personal info on me...LOL.

Bob, will you release

1) all tests with all SIR sizes?

2) all transcripts of ITAC meeting in which Andy participated & this BMW SIR issue was discussed?

Thanks!
[/b]

What say you, Bob???

[Andy Bettencourt]

What say you, Bob???
[/b]

Bob does not frequent this site like the rest of us nerds.

Notice he joined in 2004 and that was his second post. If you care to request something, send it in to the CRB. [email protected] And don't be surprised when your request gets printed in Sportscar like all the rest.

AB

[stevel]

LOL...good one, Steve. Yes, even us boring corporate types sometimes exhibit senses of humor. Although I am not sure why you found it necessary to root out what I do for a living....or even found it necessary to earlier demand my real name. Smokescreen, anyone?
[/b]

Wow, do you always act like the world is against you? Smokescreen? Root out what you do for a living? No Dave. I just found it humorous is all. And not humorous as in laughing at you, but laughing with you. It wasn't meant as a shot to you at all, I just found it funny. Again, stop looking for something that isn't there.

Bill has a Stickley motor, but no MoTeC, and he can't get even over 160hp.

And you are now doing what? Somehow trying to make that not seem bad? Steve, 160hp is so uncompetitive--whether in a BMW or an RX-7--as to be laughable.
[/b]

Dave, I know you're a smart guy. Using that 160hp dyno as any sort of valid argument is BS and you know it. Yes, 160hp is uncompetitive. So is 180whp! Which is what it started with! He has a Stickley motor, with no MoTeC and can't get over 180whp to start with! Is it our fault he brought a motor that is subpar in the form it was tested? You've seemed to skip over the other point I mentioned. Would you rather lose 19hp or have 300lbs added? 160hp at 2850 or 180hp at 3150. Hmmmm, seems like a no brainer to me.

Do you actually read what you post before you post it?

[/b]

Dave, you can stop with the condescending attitude. We are all adults here, right?

Come on...dig for more personal info on me...LOL.

[/b]

Not what I was trying to do. Dave, if you have anything else you wanna say regarding my points, please PM me about it. I am trying to raise some valid points and you choose to ignore half of them and just argue the other half when it serves your argument. Ignoring the fact that he started with 180whp is a great example. Please, write your concerns in a formal letter to the CRB.

s

[Harry Balszac]

Mmm-kay, Steve. Whatever.

My point WRT the Stickley motor was obviously lost in translation, so here it is again:

The SIR was promised NOT to have ANY detrimental effect on motors not making (IIRC) 210hp unrestricted.

This has been proven a lie.

Bill's starting HP is irrelevant, except it proves the lie.

And, instead of scrapping this whole suspect process, and the resultant decision-du-jour, and starting over--which is what fair, rational, unbiased people would do--SCCA has chosen to bury its collective head in the sand & say "our way or the highway" while they blame Raetech for their own....performance.

I, frankly, don't care whether Bill got a good or bad motor. I do, however, care that he lost 20hp in a circumstance that ITAC & CRB promised would NOT happen.

Am I being more clear now?

[DoubleD]

Perhaps this is the $64,000 question:

It appears that the E36 would have been considered within the target ITS envelope had the SIR had no effect on HP and torque below the target. If, beyond reasonable doubt, it is shown that the SIR reduces HP and Torque at a given RPM below the target peak HP, is not the weight of 2850 too high? Surely the "adder" in the formula for torque must be adjusted...if the goal is parity, of course.

I suspect responses to this could be fun.