April SIR ruling

[buldogge]

...and...ummm...there's the little problem of Mazda RX-7 2680/185 rwhp (remember...we only deal with the best examples here at IT.com) - 14.5

and then there's:

BMW unrestricted 3000/195 rwhp - 15.4 (hmmm) (same as E46 weight)

or

BMW 29mm restricted with the newly discovered across the board 20hp lost (as conveyed by Bob) 2850/175 rwhp - 16.3

???

Earl, not a BMW guy, and not really weighing in on this, but some rough numbers:

1. Mazda RX7 power to weight: 2680/175 rwhp - 15.3

2. Porsche 944 power to weight: 2535 (is that right)/155 rwhp - 16.3

3. BMW unrestricted: 2850/195 rwhp - 14.6 OR 2850/210 (depending on who you believe) - 13.5

4. BMW "restricted": 2850/180rwhp - 15.8

5. BMW "weighted": 3150/195rwhp - 16.1 OR 3150/210 - 15

6. GSR: 2750/175 - 15.5

7. For laughs, my car; 2560/160 - 16
[/b]

[Bill Miller]

Mark,

If you're going to consider the best example, you need to up that 195 rwhp figure on the E36 325 to 205-210 at least.

[seckerich]

And if you want to have a real level headed discussion you must include those HP numbers, approximate power band it will cross (not just peak) and the TORQUE numbers and the width of that power band. Then we have an honest discussion and somewher to go. Just an observation from an innocent bystander. Sorry - can't keep a straight face with that one.

[buldogge]

Do you have the proof and charts on that Bill...

I'm not trying to be combative...but...we haven't seen any such dyno...anywhere...only rumor and conjecture.

Mark,

If you're going to consider the best example, you need to up that 195 rwhp figure on the E36 325 to 205-210 at least.
[/b]

Are the rolleyes for my text or for your "innocent bystander" status :P

???

And if you want to have a real level headed discussion you must include those HP numbers, approximate power band it will cross (not just peak) and the TORQUE numbers and the width of that power band. Then we have an honest discussion and somewher to go. Just an observation from an innocent bystander. Sorry - can't keep a straight face with that one.
[/b]

[Eagle7]

...and...ummm...there's the little problem of Mazda RX-7 2680/185 rwhp (remember...we only deal with the best examples here at IT.com) - 14.5
[/b]

Is that a for-real number? Where did it come from? I think the highest I had ever heard was < 175.

[JeffYoung]

And gear ratios (had no idea the E36 was 1:1 fifth gear), and suspension, aero and brakes.

From my perspective, the E36 has the raw numbers and looks like the king of the hill. The RX7 for some reason is a great race car and better than the numbers show.

But in looking at the "raw" hp/weight ratio, the E36 + 150 pounds certainly appears to make ITS a level playing field (rough but level) in the 14.5 to 15.5 power to weight ratio.

Jeff

[Bill Miller]

Do you have the proof and charts on that Bill...

I&#39;m not trying to be combative...but...we haven&#39;t seen any such dyno...anywhere...only rumor and conjecture.
Are the rolleyes for my text or for your "innocent bystander" status :P

???
[/b]

Mark,

We&#39;ve seen a sheet on a motor that made 195 that was admittedly not a top-level and max-bling effort. I believe the ITAC has rec&#39;d sheets in the 205-210 whp range.

But, I&#39;m sure not going to hang my hat on a couple of dyno charts.

[seckerich]

Do you have the proof and charts on that Bill...

I&#39;m not trying to be combative...but...we haven&#39;t seen any such dyno...anywhere...only rumor and conjecture.
Are the rolleyes for my text or for your "innocent bystander" status :P

???
[/b]

My innocent bystander!!

[gpeluso]

Is that a for-real number? Where did it come from? I think the highest I had ever heard was < 175.
[/b]

AB claimed 180-182 whp for the RX7. I am sure he will agree.

Greg

[Andy Bettencourt]

AB claimed 180-182 whp for the RX7. I am sure he will agree.

Greg [/b]

That is indeed the largest number we have ever seen on a DynoJet.

[erlrich]

If it were JUST those 2 choices? A 29mm SIR that does not work as advertised OR a 300lb chunk of lead?

I would do neither, and run in BMWCCA and NASA instead.
[/b]

Hmmm... maybe my wording was a little unclear - what I was asking was what ALTERNATIVES would the BMW guys offer. As in how would you choose to restrict power output to 180rwhp, other than with a "29mm SIR that does not work as advertised", assuming you absolutely had to.

[Harry Balszac]

Hmmm... maybe my wording was a little unclear - what I was asking was what ALTERNATIVES would the BMW guys offer. As in how would you choose to restrict power output to 180rwhp, other than with a "29mm SIR that does not work as advertised", assuming you absolutely had to.
[/b]

I am sorry---I must have misunderstood the question.

I think Dave Dillehay made a good suggestion regarding weight in the 150lb range. Since so much of the alleged "formula" is subjective, IMO, we need to get the subjectivity & arbitrariness out of it.

A lot of very experienced racers say that 10 pounds is like 1 HP (approximately). So, if we take the assumption that most well-tuned E36 motors are making 195 HP, a 150 lb lead weight would dunk 15 HP, thus making 180 HP.

Of course, there are motors making less, and there may or may not be motors making more. But 195 has been thrown around repeatedly, so why not take 15 off by using 150 lbs of weight?

[JeffYoung]

This non-BMW ITS driver would be perfectly happy to see the E36 at 3000 lbs and no restrictor for this year, with the option for a further (weight, not restrictor) adjustment if necessary.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am sorry---I must have misunderstood the question.

I think Dave Dillehay made a good suggestion regarding weight in the 150lb range. Since so much of the alleged "formula" is subjective, IMO, we need to get the subjectivity & arbitrariness out of it.

A lot of very experienced racers say that 10 pounds is like 1 HP (approximately). So, if we take the assumption that most well-tuned E36 motors are making 195 HP, a 150 lb lead weight would dunk 15 HP, thus making 180 HP.

Of course, there are motors making less, and there may or may not be motors making more. But 195 has been thrown around repeatedly, so why not take 15 off by using 150 lbs of weight? [/b]

Harry,

The counter to that excellent suggestion is that the gold-standard for these is 210whp. So if you want to get to 180, you have to take away 30hp. And using the 10 to 1 formula, that is 300lbs. And to add to that, 30whp is approx 36 flywheel horsepower which would be 360lbs. Seeminly, this model supports a process weight of 3150-3200 - no?

You have to class based on potential, not on &#39;most well tuned&#39; examples.
************

Jeff,

Your suggestion smacks of comp adjustments. The math is either right or it is wrong. The only way to move from your 3000lb suggestion (BTW what do E46 323 owners say with their 172 stock hp at 3000?) is to use race results (comp adjustment) which we know is impossible.

[Harry Balszac]

Gold standard? LOL.

Andy, please prove that the majority of E36 motors in ITS are producting 210 RWHP.

I will save you some time: THEY ARE NOT.

Your "gold standard" is subjective nonsense, with all due respect, and has NEVER been proven. EVER.

So let&#39;s get past it & back to reality. 195 RWHP is a reasonable number that I would put money on being under the largest part of the bell curve. Work with that, OK? and not some make-believe number that a lot of the BMW community feels was made up out of whole cloth to justify punishing the E36.

Not saying this is right or wrong--just saying that perception is reality.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Gold standard? LOL.

Andy, please prove that the majority of E36 motors in ITS are producting 210 RWHP.

I will save you some time: THEY ARE NOT.

Your "gold standard" is subjective nonsense, with all due respect, and has NEVER been proven. EVER.

So let&#39;s get past it & back to reality. 195 RWHP is a reasonable number that I would put money on being under the largest part of the bell curve. Work with that, OK? and not some make-believe number that a lot of the BMW community feels was made up out of whole cloth to justify punishing the E36.

Not saying this is right or wrong--just saying that perception is reality. [/b]

Harry,

I never said that the majority of E36 owners are putting that to the ground. Never been proven? Call Sunbelt and call Mike V at ISC. Prove to yourself what can happen when you spend the money and dedicate the time. I am very sorry that you don&#39;t believe but I can&#39;t help you futher. There are people on this forum who have SEEN it first hand and there are people on this forum who have been told by owners of the car(s) THEMSELVES that 210 was absolute max.

(On edit - if you use 210whp to class this car which some belive and some don&#39;t, process weight goes to 3300 - getting into the rediculous obviously. Some mitigation of weight HAS to be assumed)

I already explained, you can&#39;t class cars based on the largest are under the bell curve. You have to class on ultimate prep. That is the only think that is fair to all.

Perception is not reality when the data is true but just not well known by those who haven&#39;t done the work. One of these &#39;mythical&#39; beasts was tuned on the same dyno I run on. I will ask the owner permission to post his sheet. Then I am sure you will ask for a background check on the owner of the dyno shop to make sure he or his family has never owned an RX-7....

[Harry Balszac]

Andy, I am not going to argue what-if with you any longer. There is ZERO evidence beyond circumstantial/hearsay of 210 RWHP ITS E36&#39;s that SCCA has produced to justify this claim. ZERO.

Now....I am calmly asking that Dave&#39;s idea be tried. Instead of going down the El Stupido path that has already produced so much misery, false promises, and bad blood...and which is going to send a large % of BMW drivers away from ITS rather than spend huge $ on an unproven (and still unavailable) concept that must be in place in a month, why not try 150 lbs and SEE WHAT HAPPENS?

Novel concept, I know.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, I am with you, but here is what I am saying: in order to cut a "deal" to resolve this mess (which is not the ITAC&#39;s fault or the CRB&#39;s fault ), have the BMW contingent, the ITAC and the other ITS drivers on the board propose a compromise resolution of 150 lbs and no SIR. That&#39;s all. Not that it is the perfect the solution, and doesn&#39;t fit the process, but neither does the SIR in my view.

I&#39;m out of this thread, made the mistake of jumping in when I shouldn&#39;t have.

Jeff

[Bill Miller]

Gold standard? LOL.

Andy, please prove that the majority of E36 motors in ITS are producting 210 RWHP.

I will save you some time: THEY ARE NOT.

Your "gold standard" is subjective nonsense, with all due respect, and has NEVER been proven. EVER.

So let&#39;s get past it & back to reality. 195 RWHP is a reasonable number that I would put money on being under the largest part of the bell curve. Work with that, OK? and not some make-believe number that a lot of the BMW community feels was made up out of whole cloth to justify punishing the E36.

Not saying this is right or wrong--just saying that perception is reality.
[/b]

Hairy,

It has nothing to do w/ &#39;the majority&#39;, or what&#39;s &#39;under the largest part of the bell curve&#39;, it has to do w/ what a full-tilt effort can squeeze out. That&#39;s not just for the E36, or ITS, that&#39;s for ALL OF IT! How the hell do you spec something based on &#39;middle of the road&#39;? You want to talk about something that&#39;s really going to widen the gap between the haves and the have nots!

BTW, since you&#39;ve got info on all the E36 ITS development projects out there, can you please share it w/ the rest of us? After all, you KNOW that no ITS-legal E36 has EVER made 210 whp. Why don&#39;t you call up James Clay or Will Turner and as them just how much power a no-expense-spared program will make? That 195hp number that you want people to use was from an admitted less than full-tilt program. You want a situation where guys can&#39;t tweak every last bit of hp out of the motor? If so, maybe you should go run SS or SM. Oh, I&#39;m sorry, I forgot that those guys spend piles of money to squeeze every last bit of grunt out of thier lumps too. In fact, they probably have to spend more, because they have to parts-bin blueprint stuff.

You are the one that needs to get past this stuff.

Andy, I am not going to argue what-if with you any longer. There is ZERO evidence beyond circumstantial/hearsay of 210 RWHP ITS E36&#39;s that SCCA has produced to justify this claim. ZERO.

Now....I am calmly asking that Dave&#39;s idea be tried. Instead of going down the El Stupido path that has already produced so much misery, false promises, and bad blood...and which is going to send a large % of BMW drivers away from ITS rather than spend huge $ on an unproven (and still unavailable) concept that must be in place in a month, why not try 150 lbs and SEE WHAT HAPPENS?

Novel concept, I know.
[/b]

Because we don&#39;t operate under a system of competition adjustments in IT. Sorry that that is so hard for you to comprehend.

Jeff,

I understand what you&#39;re saying, but letting a group of drivers hold the SCCA hostage, and to just &#39;cut a deal&#39; sets a REALLY bad precedent.

[mlytle]

Hmmm... maybe my wording was a little unclear - what I was asking was what ALTERNATIVES would the BMW guys offer. As in how would you choose to restrict power output to 180rwhp, other than with a "29mm SIR that does not work as advertised", assuming you absolutely had to.
[/b]

maybe i am sounding like a broken record here..

c/ none of the above. zero desire to restrict power or increase weight.


d/ add a new class above its and put the e36 in it at 2750lbs with no restrictor. who cares if it is a one car class for now. classify new cars into it over time at the perf standard the formula for the e36 in that configuration creates. do it now....


and all you guys trying to toss around whp figures aren&#39;t going to get anywhere because you haven&#39;t set a standard dyno type or condition for comparison. 190-195 on a mustang ain&#39;t the same as 190-195 on a dynojet.