April SIR ruling

[seckerich]

That's a crock and you know it Joe. You were one of the main people that said that the engine would be "blind" to the SIR below its target hp. Sounds like you bought into Raetch's line of crap pretty hard. You picked the wrong horse.

Jake,

Sigh is right!
[/b]

Only way that a motor will be blind to an SIR is if it is way in front of the air flow meter. This puts it outside the allowance for intake air in IT. Some will tune without the signal from the AFM and get right back to their original numbers. Just because "the tests" did not show this does not mean it can't be done. You way underestimate some tuners. Same responses I remember from the flat plate debate--got bit on that didn't we?? Wait and see the creative intake hoses that were opened up to the throttle body before you make your decision.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Fron post #190

So...the SIR technology is what it is. Let's move forward from this post. I would like DoubleD, Mr. Scott and anyone else to weigh in. Knowing what you know about the options:

SIR's: Restrict underprepped engines, retain 2850 and drivability
FPR's: Restrict unerprepped engines, retain 2850 and lose drivability. Would have to by a spec setup and install it unmodified.
Weight: Engines go unrestricted, car uses more tires and brakes, treated same as all cars in IT

These are the facts as we know them now. What do you think is the best thing for IT?[/b]

Mr. Scott - can we move forward? Your posts say the same thing over and over but never get to a solution. What are your thoughts on an actual solution?

AB

[Harry Balszac]

A rediculously large % of you acting up here have already been chastized in the last episide of IT.com character assasination... and frankly I'm a little surprised since I know some of the repeat offenders personally... you wouldn't act this way in person, why do it here?

Now since I hate to type... I wil refer you to the links below... you know what the next step is. RLEAP is correct and I wont have the few ruin this site for the masses.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...indpost&p=70254

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...indpost&p=70323
[/b]

Thank you very much for handling the situation swiftly, bro.

That's a crock and you know it Joe. You were one of the main people that said that the engine would be "blind" to the SIR below its target hp. Sounds like you bought into Raetch's line of crap pretty hard. You picked the wrong horse.

Jake,

Sigh is right!
[/b]

Thanks for saying this, Bill. Bingo.

Fron post #190
Mr. Scott - can we move forward? Your posts say the same thing over and over but never get to a solution. What are your thoughts on an actual solution?

AB
[/b]

Andy, so do yours. Ironic, isn't it?

However, I will break the mold & actually answer your question. Here is what I think should be done:

Scrap this "solution" entirely, go back to the drawing board, test SIR's of all sizes & PUBLISH THE RESULTS immediately, and make sure to test them on full-bling motors & lower-budget motors equally. Do LOTS of dyno tests. Then, find the actual TESTED AND DOCUMENTED solution that gives the desired ~190hp level for the full-bling motors w/o giving the grassroots-budget motors a death sentence. Publish results & the documented, tested SIR size, for implementation on 1/1/07. Oh, and publish all minutes of all meetings where this issues is discussed & decided. This needs to be 100% on the up & up, with integrity and credibility, in order to preserve the spirit, honesty, and grassroots involvement for which SCCA club racing is known.

Oh, and you personally should not be involved in any of it.

[Joe Harlan]

NO Bill as normal you just want to rant....you have seen no tests that are actually done on a car in a proper state of tune. So you have no idea what the effect will be. Now I will say that I was wrong only because the IT rules don't allow the install far enough away from the MAF but I will bet money that with in a year that problem will be solved and the 29MM will be too big.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, so do yours. Ironic, isn't it?[/b]

At least I am trying to move forward instead of treading water.

However, I will break the mold & actually answer your question. [/b]

Here is what I think should be done:

Scrap this "solution" entirely, go back to the drawing board, test SIR's of all sizes & PUBLISH THE RESULTS immediately, and make sure to test them on full-bling motors & lower-budget motors equally. Do LOTS of dyno tests. Then, find the actual TESTED AND DOCUMENTED solution that gives the desired ~190hp level for the full-bling motors w/o giving the grassroots-budget motors a death sentence. Publish results & the documented, tested SIR size, for implementation on 1/1/07. Oh, and publish all minutes of all meetings where this issues is discussed & decided. This needs to be 100% on the up & up, with integrity and credibility, in order to preserve the spirit, honesty, and grassroots involvement for which SCCA club racing is known.[/b]

The problem is that there is no solution that nets the ~185whp target for full-bring stuff, yet doesn't restrict the underpreped. This is the case with an SIR or a FPR. I didn't really want to hear your 'wish' list, I wanted to understand what you would do given the charcteristics of each of the three 'choices' I listed. Right now, those are really the only options (having said that, the CRB has made their decision but there are many here who would like to hear how you would have handled it given the info you now know - as well as Mr. DoubleD).

Oh, and you personally should not be involved in any of it. [/b]

That will be up to the CRB and ITAC Chairman to decide. I will serve as directed.

AB

[DoubleD]

At least I am trying to move forward instead of treading water.

I didn't really want to hear your 'wish' list, I wanted to understand what you would do given the charcteristics of each of the three 'choices' I listed. Right now, those are really the only options (having said that, the CRB has made their decision but there are many here who would like to hear how you would have handled it given the info you now know - as well as Mr. DoubleD).

AB
[/b]

Restricting your list to a series of untenable choices does not make for meaningful debate. I told you months ago I'd give the E36 150 pounds. I also provided a clear reason for that number.

Now, please provide a direct answer to my question in post number 160 of this thread.

[Eagle7]

Oh, and you personally should not be involved in any of it.
[/b]

What a load of crap. Pretty ironic that the only reason that Andy's taking all this heat is because he's offered the most information to us. Don't you get it that as a member of the ITAC he doesn't have the power to make a single decision? I don't know how he voted on this recommendation, but I'm guessing that it was not for what the CRB implemented. Shoot the messenger and you'll get no more messages - is that what you want?

CRB - please give them the 300 lbs and be done with it.

[Harry Balszac]

At least I am trying to move forward instead of treading water.[/b]

Whatever you say, Andy.

The problem is that there is no solution that nets the ~185whp target for full-bring stuff, yet doesn't restrict the underpreped. This is the case with an SIR or a FPR. [/b]

Really? Well, you & others here promised unequivocally that there was. Given that this promise seems to have now been hastily withdrawn, I believe scrapping the entire flawed, suspect process & starting over is best for the sport.

I didn't really want to hear your 'wish' list, I wanted to understand what you would do given the charcteristics of each of the three 'choices' I listed. Right now, those are really the only options (having said that, the CRB has made their decision but there are many here who would like to hear how you would have handled it given the info you now know - as well as Mr. DoubleD). [/b]

Sorry, Andy, but this is nonsense. Why should we have ANY faith in your claim that these are the only 3 possible choices. All due respect, but your credibility ain't real high right now. As DoubleD says, there ARE other choices. I wonder why you are not willing to look at them?

What a load of crap. Pretty ironic that the only reason that Andy's taking all this heat is because he's offered the most information to us. Don't you get it that as a member of the ITAC he doesn't have the power to make a single decision? I don't know how he voted on this recommendation, but I'm guessing that it was not for what the CRB implemented. Shoot the messenger and you'll get no more messages - is that what you want?

CRB - please give them the 300 lbs and be done with it.
[/b]

Marty, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

As for shooting the messenger...that is what has been done to me over the least severl days here. Ironic, isn't it?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Restricting your list to a series of untenable choices does not make for meaningful debate. I told you months ago I'd give the E36 150 pounds. I also provided a clear reason for that number.

Now, please provide a direct answer to my question in post number 160 of this thread. [/b]

I missed that post completely. Here it is:

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.[/b]

Nope. The CRB decide that the 27mm was too small. Based on actual testing they made an adjustment to the size. As Bob said, it will take 20whp of off everything. When setting a weight for a car, you have to class it based on it's POTENTIAL - it's estimated PEAK. The underprepared really have no affect on what a car should weigh. You can't do it like that. What you are suggesting is that each car gets a weight based on it's prep level - and that is impossible if not rediculous.

Whatever you say, Andy.

Really? Well, you & others here promised unequivocally that there was. Given that this promise seems to have now been hastily withdrawn, I believe scrapping the entire flawed, suspect process & starting over is best for the sport. [/b]

The promise has not been withdrawn, the 'promise' (and I use that word lightly) has been DISPROVEN. We have told you of the error and are now working with new data.

Sorry, Andy, but this is nonsense. Why should we have ANY faith in your claim that these are the only 3 possible choices. All due respect, but your credibility ain't real high right now. As DoubleD says, there ARE other choices. I wonder why you are not willing to look at them?[/b]

WHAT ARE THE OTHER CHOICES? 150lbs was thrown out by DoubleD some time ago. DD, tell us again how you got to that number? We have a process, it is working. It should work (IMHO) for this car too. To refresh from earlier in this thread:

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]

Let's see your math again DoubleD!

HB,

Starting over is fine, but knowing what you know about how the tech works, what is your solution???

As for shooting the messenger...that is what has been done to me over the least severl days here. Ironic, isn't it? [/b]

Not really. I would hardly call you a messenger. WE have delivered the message, you have complained about the message. VERY different.

[Harry Balszac]

Hahahahahaha! This just gets better and better.

[e36its]

I'd like to hear what folks think about post 198. Very interesting idea, Greg. I suspect maybe the post was lost in the flurry of craptacularly bad behavior we had around that same time. Any thoughts?

tom

[Harry Balszac]

I'd like to hear what folks think about post 198. Very interesting idea, Greg. I suspect maybe the post was lost in the flurry of craptacularly bad behavior we had around that same time. Any thoughts?

tom
[/b]

Tom, I must admit I missed Greg's post, too.

I believe it has merit. However, I also believe that it is not quite as simple as 300lbs or a 29mm restrictor, as Andy et al would have us believe. DoubleD's 150lb penalty also has merit, IMO.

But choice is ALWAYS good!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'd like to hear what folks think about post 198. Very interesting idea, Greg. I suspect maybe the post was lost in the flurry of craptacularly bad behavior we had around that same time. Any thoughts?

tom [/b]

Tom,

The idea in concept has merit. The only issue is that there is no precident for it and it may open up a flurry of requests for similar allowances. If the CRB thinks it is the best thing for the E36 guys and the rest of IT, they may bite. Write in to the CRB (crb AT scca.com) and tell them you think it would be a good thing.

3050 is simply too light according to the process. I think it would look more like 29mm @ 2850 or no RP @ 3200.

AB

[DoubleD]

I missed that post completely. Here it is:
Nope. The CRB decide that the 27mm was too small. Based on actual testing they made an adjustment to the size. As Bob said, it will take 20whp of off everything. When setting a weight for a car, you have to class it based on it's POTENTIAL - it's estimated PEAK. The underprepared really have no affect on what a car should weigh. You can't do it like that. What you are suggesting is that each car gets a weight based on it's prep level - and that is impossible if not rediculous.
The promise has not been withdrawn, the 'promise' (and I use that word lightly) has been DISPROVEN. We have told you of the error and are now working with new data.
[/b]

So what you are saying is that your promise was meaningless. Having been disproven has not affected implementation at all. That, sir, is a total lack of honor.

WHAT ARE THE OTHER CHOICES? 150lbs was thrown out by DoubleD some time ago. DD, tell us again how you got to that number? We have a process, it is working. It should work (IMHO) for this car too.
[/b]

My process for coming up with that weight has been explained just as thoroughly as your process. It's subjective. It's an allowance for the FACT that weight has an exponential effect on performance that is not adequately described by HP/weight. This is a fact which you scoffed at months ago and I'm sure you'll do again now.

Starting over is fine, but knowing what you know about how the tech works, what is your solution???
[/b]

The theory behind SIR is sound. I've never denied that. What I told you on BF is that significant testing will be required to make it work. The basic problem with the implementation of the SIR is that it requires extremely steady pressure on both sides of the SIR to work properly. Small variations in pressure, especially on the downstream side, will cause large changes in the speed of sound at the exit of the SIR. Those changes will cause the SIR's output to change dramatically. While placing the SIR downstream of all other flow restrictions will allow it to provide the maximum available flow through the intake tract by reducing the pressure on the inlet side, placement too close to the valves, intake horns, and plenum will allow the pressure waves created in the intake plenum to reach the downstream end of the SIR. What you end up with is an SIR that "puffs" air rather than providing a consistant stream. Thsoe puffs being out of phase with the tuning of the plenum shape and air horns are, I believe, the reason that motors are going lean on the SIR (a counter-intuitive result).

A lot of testing will need to be done and, I suspect, that in order to make the program work a complete intake tract will need to be developed and spec'd through SCCA. It may be inconvinient for you to do so at this time, but you may well remember that I alluded to this heavily over a month ago.

Let's see your math again DoubleD!


[/b]

That's great math if you are John Force. Unfortunately, this isn't drag racing and weight penalizes more than just acceleration, especially when tire size is static accross a 1000lbs range of weight in the class. Show me where your math accounts for the weight normalized to tire size and you'll have a convert.

[Andy Bettencourt]

DoubleD's 150lb penalty also has merit, IMO.
[/b]

I love how it's a 'penalty' and not what it SHOULD weigh. I would like to understand why you think 3000lbs is the right number. The E46 323 at 172 stock hp is 3000lbs.

So what you are saying is that your promise was meaningless. Having been disproven has not affected implementation at all. That, sir, is a total lack of honor.[/b]

Not at all. Nobody promised that if it disn't work exactly as billed it was no longer an option.

My process for coming up with that weight has been explained just as thoroughly as your process. It's subjective. It's an allowance for the FACT that weight has an exponential effect on performance that is not adequately described by HP/weight. This is a fact which you scoffed at months ago and I'm sure you'll do again now. [/b]

Just copy and paste it here like I did so we can review it once more.

The theory behind SIR is sound. I've never denied that. What I told you on BF is that significant testing will be required to make it work. The basic problem with the implementation of the SIR is that it requires extremely steady pressure on both sides of the SIR to work properly. Small variations in pressure, especially on the downstream side, will cause large changes in the speed of sound at the exit of the SIR. Those changes will cause the SIR's output to change dramatically. While placing the SIR downstream of all other flow restrictions will allow it to provide the maximum available flow through the intake tract by reducing the pressure on the inlet side, placement too close to the valves, intake horns, and plenum will allow the pressure waves created in the intake plenum to reach the downstream end of the SIR. What you end up with is an SIR that "puffs" air rather than providing a consistant stream. Thsoe puffs being out of phase with the tuning of the plenum shape and air horns are, I believe, the reason that motors are going lean on the SIR (a counter-intuitive result).[/b]

Your presentation is excellent but I admit I am no engineer.

A lot of testing will need to be done and, I suspect, that in order to make the program work a complete intake tract will need to be developed and spec'd through SCCA. It may be inconvinient for you to do so at this time, but you may well remember that I alluded to this heavily over a month ago.[/b]

If this is the way the CRB wants to go, I would support a spec intake set-up 100% sold through SCCA Enterprises.

That's great math if you are John Force. Unfortunately, this isn't drag racing and weight penalizes more than just acceleration, especially when tire size is static accross a 1000lbs range of weight in the class. Show me where your math accounts for the weight normalized to tire size and you'll have a convert. [/b]

This isn't an exact science. It's an estimation. You can see by the numbers that the weight suggestion of 3200 lbs has been 'normalized based in a few factors. 1. Larger brakes have little advantage when weight climes with respect to other cars. 2. 3169 is the weight BEFORE consideration of HUGE torque and perfect tranny ratios - (anyone else have a 1:1 5th?). I think you will find that an even 3200 is very reasonable. The problem here is that people look at 2850 as the 'correct' weight to begin with and that is so far from the case.

You want to add 150lbs? No BS here, please point us to the detail.

AB

[Bob Dowie]

Hi Dave,

There are no transcripts of the ad hoc calls. When the call is over we have a set of notes very similar to what you see in fastrack, with notations from the committee. The notes may be wording suggestions, or outlines of both sides of an issue that the committee is split on, or an idea that the committee would like to bring forward. They certainly aren't detailed as to who said what. There are also two CRB liaisons on the calls that listen to the discussion and bring the committees recommendations and thoughts to the CRB for consideration. While the committee's recommendations carry more weight then ever, it is the CRB that makes the final call or recommendation.

If your asking for this information to find evidence that Andy is the driving force behind the E36 changes you won't find any because it's not the case. When I was appointed to the CRB the E36 was on the agenda, this was well before the committees roles were increased to the level they are today, and predates most members of the current committee including Andy. I can assure you it would be impossible for any one member of any committee to move a personal agenda forward under the current process.

I don't think anyone would disagree with your suggestion on the ideal way to test and implement these type of changes, the only hang up is funding. There were some good suggestions brought forward at the convention to raise money for the Tech dept that would allow them to do some of what you suggest, but at the current time the money isn't there.



DJ,

Your question was asked during the Club Racing town hall meeting at the convention. I'm afraid I didn't catch the gentleman's name but I'll be glad to give you the same answer here. If we're wrong it will be fixed. Its certainly more important we get this right then it is that the CRB save face by standing behind a bad decision. Of course I can understand you being skeptical and I certainly would have preferred I didn't miss the size to start with. I'd like to thank the folks that provided us with the quick feedback and solid data that showed the initial sizing to be wrong. I remain convinced its better to restrict the power then to add that much weight. And believe an SIR is a better way to do it versus an equally effective flat plate.

Thanks, Bob

[lateapex911]

......... and make sure to test them on full-bling motors & lower-budget motors equally. Do LOTS of dyno tests. Then, find the actual TESTED AND DOCUMENTED solution that gives the desired ~190hp level for the full-bling motors w/o giving the grassroots-budget motors a death sentence. [/b]

OK, rather than beat my head against a wall any more, I will skip many points and just hit a highlight or two...

one-

WHY do you, Harry Balsac think that this car is more entitled to preferential treatment than any other car listed in the ITCS??? Simply put, why do some members of this owner group, (or people campaigning for the car) feel they are deserving of a better deal than afforded every one else?

two-

Harry, will you provide the full bling car for your required testing? Or do you suggest the club purchase one?

[Harry Balszac]

Bob, I am very grateful for your considered response. That is all I sought. My desire in gaining transparency for the procedings was to see whether there was a predetermined bias against the E36, or towards the RX-7, by anyone who has an obvious vested interest in the success of the latter. So many people suspect this--true or not--that absolute transparency is the ONLY way to remove the giant stigma over this entire 3 year ordeal. I regret that it now appears that transparency of these procedings will not be available. Oh, well, I tried! And got shat upon mercilessly for doing do (not by you, though, and for that I am grateful).

Jake, I don't think ANYONE is entitled to preferential treatment. Nor do I think the E36 is the proven overdog it is claimed to be, on track. When guys like Andy, who has a vested interest in RX-7s, tell us that on-track performance is irrelevant, and some magical formula is all that matters...well, it sure smells bad to me and a lot of other people. Frankly, the E36 and the RX-7 are pretty evenly matched on track. To me, why reduce the E36's competitiveness for some retarded "formula" when on-track performance is so equal?

[mlytle]

the option that would be the simplest of all...

d/ none of the above..

reclassify the e36 into a new class above its at a lower weight. then bring in some other cars into the new class that are available.


do this NOW!!! end the lunacy of the performance compensation adjustment on the e36.

[DoubleD]

Not at all. Nobody promised that if it disn't work exactly as billed it was no longer an option.

[/b]

Fine. But since it has not worked as promised, the implementation method should be changed accordingly. This has not happened. I find it odd, to say the least, that sufficient data was collected to change the SIR sizing but that data is not being released despite the extremely short period provided to racers in which to make the required changes. As with so many other aspects of this SNAFU, I find it highly suspect.

Just copy and paste it here like I did so we can review it once more.
[/b]

It's an estimate. It's not based on hokey, over simplified, meaningless math like yours is.

Your presentation is excellent but I admit I am no engineer.
[/b]

No kidding. If you were, you'd have never allowed your mouth to write checks your ass can't cash. You'd have known full well that making declarative statements about how the SIR would function without testing first was a bad move. It's a shame that you lack the brass to accept the proper responsibility for those statements. Frankly, your unwillingness to even attempt to do the right thing - to accept some responsibility and try to STOP the implementation of the rule change indicates to me that fairness is indeed not what you seek. Instead you've simply shrugged and pointed the finger at Finch and CRB.

If this is the way the CRB wants to go, I would support a spec intake set-up 100% sold through SCCA Enterprises.
[/b]

It seems likely to me that this is the only tenable means by which to impelement an SIR program in this case.

This isn't an exact science. It's an estimation. You can see by the numbers that the weight suggestion of 3200 lbs has been 'normalized based in a few factors. 1. Larger brakes have little advantage when weight climes with respect to other cars.2. 3169 is the weight BEFORE consideration of HUGE torque and perfect tranny ratios - (anyone else have a 1:1 5th?). I think you will find that an even 3200 is very reasonable. The problem here is that people look at 2850 as the 'correct' weight to begin with and that is so far from the case.
[/b]

You mean the brakes that are smaller and have an inferior caliper design compared to the 944?

Once again, you have either failed to address my point or have ignored it for convinience.

Months ago I became involved in posting on this subject because I was beginning to build an ITS car. From that time I have conceeded that the E36 needed an adjustment. Despite that relatively moderate position, I have received nothing but arrogant and scornfull replies devoid of meaningful response. That even those who would agree with you and try to work out a fair and equitable compromise are treated with scorn and ridicule is telling. That when the changes you propone fail to produce the stated effect (I use the word stated, not intended) you continue on with them is a crystal clear indication of what is going on.

I have continued to post in various threads on this topic without any direct interest either on track or financial. I have done so only in a desire to see fairness played out for people unable to speak as freely as I due to fear of future retaliation. Frankly, it is clear that all is lost at this point. The rule is promulgated and the date certain set. I would love to be wrong, but am convinced that the E36 325 is dead in ITS as a competitive car. You win, Andy. The RX7 will again be dominant...until Glenn Yi sells the two 944's he's got, at which point this will all begin again with the 944 squarely in your sights.