April SIR ruling

[dj10]

[quote]
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.
/quote]

AB or anyone with knowledge of this, for clairfication, @210 rwhp, was this BMW on what kind of Dyno, and was this with Motec?
Thanks
dj

[Harry Balszac]

Hairy,

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

BTW, since you'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'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't tweak every last bit of hp out of the motor? If so, maybe you should go run SS or SM. Oh, I'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.

Because we don't operate under a system of competition adjustments in IT. Sorry that that is so hard for you to comprehend.

[/b]

Bill, why you gotta be an azzhole about it? I was asked for my OPINION and I gave it. Please take a deep breath before you blow an o-ring.

1) I did not say there are no motors making 210. I specifically said that SCCA has produced no evidence of any, and yet Andy keeps calling 210 the alleged "gold standard". If there is evidence, produce it, or STFU. It is that simple. Until there is proof, on a dyno that other cars are also run on, it is an imaginary number, and you know it. As such, I am PROPOSING that 195 be the pre-target, add 150 lbs, and still arrive at the 180 post-target.

2) No comp adjustments in IT? Then, pray tell, what the hell is this exercise about, anyway? Come on, man---read your posts before posting them, please. 300 lbs (or 150 lbs) or a 29mm SIR is exactly that--a competition adjustment because folks think the E36 is an overdog on track.

Sheesh...

[seckerich]

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's fault or the CRB'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's all. Not that it is the perfect the solution, and doesn't fit the process, but neither does the SIR in my view.

I'm out of this thread, made the mistake of jumping in when I shouldn't have.

Jeff
[/b]

With all due respect Jeff, it is the "cutting of deals" that has us in this position. Every time this car has been dealt with or ignored--pick the year--the drivers scream bloody murder and the powers that be wimp out. Do not even suggest that it happen again. It needs to get the same process that all of IT got and see where it falls. If they screwed the pooch--then fix it with the errors and omissions clause.

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't going to get anywhere because you haven't set a standard dyno type or condition for comparison. 190-195 on a mustang ain't the same as 190-195 on a dynojet.
[/b]

Spec BMW--what a novel idea. Sounds familiar. I will get permission from the owner to post a dyno sheet of a 198 dynojet motor with no vanos control and a chip--no motec.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, why you gotta be an azzhole about it? I was asked for my OPINION and I gave it. Please take a deep breath before you blow an o-ring.

1) I did not say there are no motors making 210. I specifically said that SCCA has produced no evidence of any, and yet Andy keeps calling 210 the alleged "gold standard". If there is evidence, produce it, or STFU. It is that simple. Until there is proof, on a dyno that other cars are also run on, it is an imaginary number, and you know it. As such, I am PROPOSING that 195 be the pre-target, add 150 lbs, and still arrive at the 180 post-target.

2) No comp adjustments in IT? Then, pray tell, what the hell is this exercise about, anyway? Come on, man---read your posts before posting them, please. 300 lbs (or 150 lbs) or a 29mm SIR is exactly that--a competition adjustment because folks think the E36 is an overdog on track.

Sheesh...
[/b]

Hairy,

Here's what you said:

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

Funny, I don't see "SCCA" in that statement anywhere. Both Andy and I have given you sources to contact to find out what's possible out of a full-tilt E36 program. Rather than availing yourself of that information, you'd rather continue to rant. You've already admitted that 195 whp is more a 'middle of the road' (greatest area under the curve is what you said, IIRC). Why the hell should one car be spec'd on a median number, when the rest are held to a max-out standard? The spoiled-brat stereotype of BMW owners seems to not totally w/o some validity.

2) No comp adjustments in IT? Then, pray tell, what the hell is this exercise about, anyway? Come on, man---read your posts before posting them, please. 300 lbs (or 150 lbs) or a 29mm SIR is exactly that--a competition adjustment because folks think the E36 is an overdog on track.[/b]

I quoted this again, because it's clear evidence that you just haven't gathered any information, nor listened to anything that's been said here at all. What part of "all the cars in the ITCS got run through the process" didn't you understand? There were plenty of other cars that had weights adjusted based on the process, both up and down. The E36 didn't get an SIR because it was an overdog, it got one because the process weight is higher than the current spec weight. The car is getting special treatment w/ an SIR, and should get the process weight just like the rest of the cars in IT. You can scream all you want about the car getting picked on, but I'll let you in on something, you're probably embarrassing a lot of your fellow E36 drivers that actually do understand the process. Have you stopped and noticed that you and DD are some of the only E36 drivers that are saying that the car is being penalized because it's an overdog? Wait, do you actually race one of these cars? You sure sling a bunch of your opinion around like it's fact.

[erlrich]

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....
[/b]

Ok, so then my next question is, why aren't the BMW guys working to get this done at the regional level? IT is a regional class after all (I know, it is actually a "national" regional class), and many regions already have classes like ITE and IT7, with the rules for those classes set at the regional level, so why not petition for ITR, or ITX, or ITwhateveryouwanttocallit? If you could get all of the BMW guys from the same region together on this, don't you think you could get it done? Marshall, you're the reigning MARRS ITS champ, surely you could rally the DC region BMW drivers to get behind this. Sure, in the beginning it would probably be a one-marque class, but I'll bet it wouldn't be long before you had some 300ZXs, 911s, 3rd gen RX7s, etc. wanting to play.

So, is there a snowball's chance of something like this getting started?

[dj10]

1) I did not say there are no motors making 210. I specifically said that SCCA has produced no evidence of any, and yet Andy keeps calling 210 the alleged "gold standard". If there is evidence, produce it, or STFU. It is that simple. Until there is proof, on a dyno that other cars are also run on, it is an imaginary number, and you know it. As such, I am PROPOSING that 195 be the pre-target, add 150 lbs, and still arrive at the 180 post-target.

2) No comp adjustments in IT? Then, pray tell, what the hell is this exercise about, anyway? Come on, man---read your posts before posting them, please. 300 lbs (or 150 lbs) or a 29mm SIR is exactly that--a competition adjustment because folks think the E36 is an overdog on track.
[/b]

Dave, IMO and from the engine builders I know their well built engines will put out 190 -195 rwhp on a Mustang Dyno, I believe that would be the equivalent of 205-210 rwhp on a Dyno Jet without Motec.

I always believed that when competive adjustments are made they should be modest so not to kill a cars ability to compete. For some reason the CRB does not like to keep adjusting, so they would rather hit you with a big adjustment and hope it is correct so they don't have to do it again, hence less bitching. I would have been happy with the weight of 150# especially since the changed the weight placement, which was the biggest common sense rule I've seen to date. Then if we need another weight adjustment just do it. But I doubt if this will happen. I like you am not happy with the amount of money this SIR is going to cost me. Not much I can do now if I want to race SCCA.
dj

[Harry Balszac]

Hairy,


Funny, I don't see "SCCA" in that statement anywhere. Both Andy and I have given you sources to contact to find out what's possible out of a full-tilt E36 program. Rather than availing yourself of that information, you'd rather continue to rant. You've already admitted that 195 whp is more a 'middle of the road' (greatest area under the curve is what you said, IIRC). Why the hell should one car be spec'd on a median number, when the rest are held to a max-out standard? The spoiled-brat stereotype of BMW owners seems to not totally w/o some validity.
I quoted this again, because it's clear evidence that you just haven't gathered any information, nor listened to anything that's been said here at all. What part of "all the cars in the ITCS got run through the process" didn't you understand? There were plenty of other cars that had weights adjusted based on the process, both up and down. The E36 didn't get an SIR because it was an overdog, it got one because the process weight is higher than the current spec weight. The car is getting special treatment w/ an SIR, and should get the process weight just like the rest of the cars in IT. You can scream all you want about the car getting picked on, but I'll let you in on something, you're probably embarrassing a lot of your fellow E36 drivers that actually do understand the process. Have you stopped and noticed that you and DD are some of the only E36 drivers that are saying that the car is being penalized because it's an overdog? Wait, do you actually race one of these cars? You sure sling a bunch of your opinion around like it's fact.
[/b]

Bill, my good man, I believe you may be parsing my comments for your own convenience. They are quoted below in their entirety. Note my comments about the subjectivity & arbitrariness of the magical "formula"? Do you think this is acceptable?

Also, I don't care that you have sent me scurrying off to talk to 3rd parties. I can get other 3rd parties to say I am the second coming of the Dali Lama. so? The point is, it is imperative that SCCA prove that 210 RWHP is being produced by real competitors in ITS right now. Saying it is "possible" or you've "heard some guy is making 210" is simply not credible...and not acceptable. Either proof exists--not of a Sunbelt motor in a crate, but of a real ITS E36 today--or it doesn't. If it does, I will gladly admit I am 100% wrong. Until it does, 195 RWHP is a very common theme among much of this SIR discussion for months now, and it HAS been proven. Why not use it? Are you so stuck on a subjective, arbitrary formula that you blind yourself to the real world?

Additionally, I never EVER said that 195 is the "middle of the road". Read my comments again, please. I said that 195 would be under the largest part of the bell curve. BIG difference. Do you understand what the difference is?

And again, 195 is proven. 210 is, so far, not.

Third, I have never said that the E36 is an overdog. In fact, I have said the exact opposite. If you had taken the time ot actually read my posts before your knee jerked, you'd realize this. I have been vocally opposed to those in SCCA, including Andy & others, who say it is, hence this adjustment. It is NOT an overdog, and all who say it is are not correct. Remember, Andy & others say it is, but also say that on-track performance is not very important to the "process". Sure sounds arbitrary & subjective to me. Let's see here: E36 & RX-7 are evenly matched on track, yet there is all this effort to slow the E36 down DESPITE this on-track performance, thanks to some magic, arbitrary, subjective "formula"?

Yeah...sorry...that dog won't hunt.

"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?"

"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'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."

[Joe Harlan]

I guess it ain't clear enough. There ain't no deals to be cut, This deal is done ahs a date and is on the way. If you can't handle it go race where ever you want. The number of cars parked by the original piss poor classification of this car makes the cars that will leave a small issue.

When you see the ITS records on the west coast held by a BMW and faster than T2 in most places you have to know the car is misclassed. Mr Norris is a top level effort with a top level car and that's what this deals are classed on. Time to get over it and get on with it.

[steve s]

i can guarantee you one thing .that is at 185whp the bmw cannot beat a full out rx7.
we couldn't beat buzz the speedsource rx7 in fl. region.at 185 whp.
also steve sek. i respect you as adriver but that 195 whp engine.could that engine survive a teardown at the ARRC or could we say a legal engine,
at the ARRC we could NOT KEEP UP WITH THE HUFFMASTER RX 7 and he was legal as all the top finishers.
anyone can throw numbers out there but is it legal numbers or just engines built to win, with a not so top notch effort.?????
also to the itac guys i know youre trying hard and you don't deserve what happening and the abuse thrown at you . stay strong and keep up your spirit, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
i cannot say whether the SIR is good or not because we don't have one to test with so i won't say if the size is correct or not .
someone was saying that variable timing and 4 valve head makes the bmw an overdog and needs a different formula the i guess the same formula should be used on the honda vtec engine??????what about the rx7 variable intake timing and intake runner lenghts??????

[seckerich]

Ok, so then my next question is, why aren't the BMW guys working to get this done at the regional level? IT is a regional class after all (I know, it is actually a "national" regional class), and many regions already have classes like ITE and IT7, with the rules for those classes set at the regional level, so why not petition for ITR, or ITX, or ITwhateveryouwanttocallit? If you could get all of the BMW guys from the same region together on this, don't you think you could get it done? Marshall, you're the reigning MARRS ITS champ, surely you could rally the DC region BMW drivers to get behind this. Sure, in the beginning it would probably be a one-marque class, but I'll bet it wouldn't be long before you had some 300ZXs, 911s, 3rd gen RX7s, etc. wanting to play.

So, is there a snowball's chance of something like this getting started?
[/b]

Now theres a party I would come to with my third gen RX--can you say "here bimmer bimmer"

i can guarantee you one thing .that is at 185whp the bmw cannot beat a full out rx7.
we couldn't beat buzz the speedsource rx7 in fl. region.at 185 whp.
also steve sek. i respect you as adriver but that 195 whp engine.could that engine survive a teardown at the ARRC or could we say a legal engine,
at the ARRC we could NOT KEEP UP WITH THE HUFFMASTER RX 7 and he was legal as all the top finishers.
anyone can throw numbers out there but is it legal numbers or just engines built to win, with a not so top notch effort.?????
also to the itac guys i know youre trying hard and you don't deserve what happening and the abuse thrown at you . stay strong and keep up your spirit, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
i cannot say whether the SIR is good or not because we don't have one to test with so i won't say if the size is correct or not .
someone was saying that variable timing and 4 valve head makes the bmw an overdog and needs a different formula the i guess the same formula should be used on the honda vtec engine??????what about the rx7 variable intake timing and intake runner lenghts??????
[/b]

It is not the first rodeo Buzz has been to--he has been at this a long time and is one fast driver. As far as the ARRC- 1/3 motor--2/3 balls. Simple formula to win there.

[Fastfred92]

Saying it is "possible" or you've "heard some guy is making 210" is simply not credible...and not acceptable. [/b]

I've heard of this guy thats getting 195 rwhp in his gen II RX7 and I am sure its possible to get 200, anything is possible if you throw enough cash at it....... If I go out and spend, say 100-200 grand on a RX 7 engine and get 10 more hp than any other documented RX7 will the CRB use that as the RX7's "gold standard". If say a orange BMW down south has a connection to a famous engine bussiness and thus $ is not an object and they make 10 more hp (legal) than everyone else is that this mystery 210 rwhp ?? Are the RX7 dyno sheets on file with the ad hoc using motec?

Not to stir the pot because I vote add weight, I just don't buy the 300lbs or the 210 rwhp....

[Harry Balszac]

I've heard of this guy thats getting 195 rwhp in his gen II RX7 and I am sure its possible to get 200, anything is possible if you throw enough cash at it....... If I go out and spend, say 100-200 grand on a RX 7 engine and get 10 more hp than any other documented RX7 will the CRB use that as the RX7's "gold standard". If say a orange BMW down south has a connection to a famous engine bussiness and thus $ is not an object and they make 10 more hp (legal) than everyone else is that this mystery 210 rwhp ?? Are the RX7 dyno sheets on file with the ad hoc using motec?

Not to stir the pot because I vote add weight, I just don't buy the 300lbs or the 210 rwhp....
[/b]

Spot on, Fred.

And so we come full-circle back to Dave D's suggestion, which I heartily support, of adding 150 lbs of lead to E36 ITS cars, thus taking out approximately 15 RWHP, and bringing the high-level effort cars down to the desired 180 RWHP.

Amazing that this simple solution eluded so many people in positions of responsibility within ITAC and CRB.

Or maybe it's not.

[Joe Harlan]

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]

Guys This is back on about page 8....WTH ARE YOU STILL FIGHTING ABOUT IT. It ain't gonna change you can offer up all kinds of counter solutions that have very little meaning but the rules change is done. Get over it.

I must also ask Mr. Scott. DO you currently or have you ever raced a fully developed ITS E36 in SCCA clubracing?

[Andy Bettencourt]

And so we come full-circle back to Dave D's suggestion, which I heartily support, of adding 150 lbs of lead to E36 ITS cars, thus taking out approximately 15 RWHP, and bringing the high-level effort cars down to the desired 180 RWHP.

Amazing that this simple solution eluded so many people in positions of responsibility within ITAC and CRB.

Or maybe it's not. [/b]

And so YOU come full circle. We told you why you can't use 195whp or anything but what is the best. The solution didn't elude us becuase it has little merit within the system we have been working for 3 years. Sorry.

To end this with you, I WILL be providing you the 'mystery' dyno sheet you have asked for so we can hear your public apology. And lastly, the 'process' weight of 3200 uses a 30% increase over stock for the E36. That is approx. 202whp using an 18% loss factor. This isn't a ploy to pidgeon-hole everyone into running a 'orange-car' level or motor, its running a process using known, reasonable power outputs given max-preparation.

Oh ya:

Additionally, I never EVER said that 195 is the "middle of the road". Read my comments again, please. I said that 195 would be under the largest part of the bell curve. BIG difference. Do you understand what the difference is?[/b]

The largest area under the Bell Curve IS the AVERAGE. Click here.

Over and out.

[seckerich]

Spot on, Fred.

And so we come full-circle back to Dave D's suggestion, which I heartily support, of adding 150 lbs of lead to E36 ITS cars, thus taking out approximately 15 RWHP, and bringing the high-level effort cars down to the desired 180 RWHP.

Amazing that this simple solution eluded so many people in positions of responsibility within ITAC and CRB.

Or maybe it's not.
[/b]

And somehow you think if you keep repeating this 195 number and your estimated 1 hp/lb number it will somehow be true? You seem like an intelligent Man Scott, but this is one time you will not succeed as a facilitator--not buying. Shoot low and hope it works. You have never replied about torque? Not want that discussion? As I said 20 posts ago, bring real numbers. 199hp with 188 torque, no motec and locked vanos on dynojet with SAE correction. A blind squirrel could find 10 more with motec and some vanos tuning. 150 150 150 --no it is still not working--keep saying it. Talk about simple?

[DoubleD]

And somehow you think if you keep repeating this 195 number and your estimated 1 hp/lb number it will somehow be true? You seem like an intelligent Man Scott, but this is one time you will not succeed as a facilitator--not buying. Shoot low and hope it works. You have never replied about torque? Not want that discussion? As I said 20 posts ago, bring real numbers. 199hp with 188 torque, no motec and locked vanos on dynojet with SAE correction. A blind squirrel could find 10 more with motec and some vanos tuning. 150 150 150 --no it is still not working--keep saying it. Talk about simple?
[/b]

Funny, when I called a well known BMW builder with an eye on buying a motec from them, they discouraged me (thank GOD) from buying it saying the cost wasnt worth the 4 or 5 crankHP. But hey...you know of a blind squirrel, so you must be right.

Edit: and locked vanos means locked on...not tuning of it. Hellooooooooooooooooo

[Harry Balszac]

You guys crack me up.

Circle the wagons at ALL costs.......but avoid answering Fred's reasonable questions about the RX-7 at ALL costs, too. LOL at the incredible irony. And ya wonder why the perception in the BMW community of bias, favoritism, and conflicts of interest haven't gone away despite the "all my friends say I am honest so I must be" testimonials?

Andy, FYI, your link showed 3 examples. The "average" was in different places in each. Maybe you meant a different example, because it sure didn't show what you think it showed.

Joe, you seem to be the master of seeking out more & more information about ME.

Why is that? What does that say about YOU?

Nevertheless, I will answer your question honestly, as I have all the other questions about ME. It was my intent to race a very well prepared ITS-legal car in 2006, prior to this SIR circus. Now, it is extremely likely that I will NOT race in it with SCCA at all, but only with BMW Club and NASA.

[Joe Harlan]

You guys crack me up.

Circle the wagons at ALL costs.......but avoid answering Fred's reasonable questions about the RX-7 at ALL costs, too. LOL at the incredible irony. And ya wonder why the perception in the BMW community of bias, favoritism, and conflicts of interest haven't gone away despite the "all my friends say I am honest so I must be" testimonials?

Andy, FYI, your link showed 3 examples. The "average" was in different places in each. Maybe you meant a different example, because it sure didn't show what you think it showed.

Joe, you seem to be the master of seeking out more & more information about ME.

Why is that? What does that say about YOU?

Nevertheless, I will answer your question honestly, as I have all the other questions about ME. It was my intent to race a very well prepared ITS-legal car in 2006, prior to this SIR circus. Now, it is extremely likely that I will NOT race in it with SCCA at all, but only with BMW Club and NASA.
[/b]

Says nothing about me Dave it does tell me that you have nothing at stake and never have. You have not been a customer we will loose and likely since you are a pro-driver your not a customer to gain. What you and your nick name tiny balls tell me is you like to fight and you have little respect for anyone's opinions but your own. So I will say it agian the rule is a done deal. I hope that the folks that have in the past enjoyed racing with SCCA will continue.

Double, If you want your statement to have any meaning then you shoudl name the engine builder and their qualifications with EFI. I can promise there is far more to be had in the hands of somebody that knows the system than 4 or 5 hp.

Again the rule is done. Mr Norris started a thread on how to make it work. Rather than all the BS maybe you experts should be helping those that are really interested in trying.

[seckerich]

Funny, when I called a well known BMW builder with an eye on buying a motec from them, they discouraged me (thank GOD) from buying it saying the cost wasnt worth the 4 or 5 crankHP. But hey...you know of a blind squirrel, so you must be right.

Edit: and locked vanos means locked on...not tuning of it. Hellooooooooooooooooo
[/b]

Helloooooooooooback--I know exactly what the vanos does and how to tweak it with motec-keep learning and you might find my squirrel. PS Total silence from Scott on the torque issue--talk about a circle j---. Oh and say something about an ITAC member and we might forget you are off on another tangent and didn't answer the direct question again. What about torque Scott? Very simple question. And my RX7 sheets from 2 seperate dynojets 500 miles apart are within 1hp and were available to the ITAC. Please send me that 195hp monster Fred saw and I will agree with the 150# for Scott.

And after reading Joes post I must agree--wrestle with a pig in the mud long enough and you realize it likes it!! Off to get a car that actually races ready for next weekend. Good luck to the Bimmer drivers with the changes-I hope you keep racing.

[Harry Balszac]

Says nothing about me Dave it does tell me that you have nothing at stake and never have. You have not been a customer we will loose and likely since you are a pro-driver your not a customer to gain. What you and your nick name tiny balls tell me is you like to fight and you have little respect for anyone's opinions but your own.
[/b]

Joe, here is some unsolicited advice regarding the above statements: please do not take up either phychology or mind-reading as a paying profession, as you would starve.

I am sorry to say that you could not be more wrong on either account. I am by no means a pro driver, although I am flattered by the accusation. I do compete in some pro races, but there is no way I even remotely have the talent to make a living racing. So I am really an amateur with pro licenses (God knows why they were ever granted...LOL). As such, the only way to hone & improve is to race in amateur/club series. So I very much have things at stake, and Club racing very much has a competitor (customer in your parlance) to lose in my moving on. And, I am sad to say, I will be only one among a large number of BMW folks leaving ITS.

And still, no one dares answer Fred's questions about the RX-7's. Very telling...

While you find it necessary once again to make issue with the irrelevant--my parodic user name--you are also way off base WRT your psychoanalysis of me. I do not like fighting, Joe. It is exhausting. But, even more, I do not like laying down while right is ignored and wrong is triumphed.

And finally, regarding your last sentence, above: you are batting .000 so far, Joe. I have great respect for the opinions of those who behave with integrity and honor, whether they dovetail with my own or not.

And I will leave it at that. Have a great evening!