April SIR ruling

[Andy Bettencourt]

I won't publish information given to me in confidence.

And stating that it would be public IF it existed has logical flaws as well. [/b]

Jake,

Don't sweat it. We all know you are right and I will be getting permission, the document, and an apology from our friend.

AB

[lateapex911]

As for your other point, why the hell didn't SCCA make mounting instructions part of the ruling? Oh, yeah, that's right: NOTHING about this SIR debacle has either been tested .........
Pure genius. Kudos to CRB and ITAC for a stellar job. LMAO...

[/b]

[sarcasm mode ON]

Huh??? NOTHING has been tested?? uh oh.. ...I played hookey from work for a couple days to attend testing...and my client wasn't thrilled to find that I would be gone for two Saturdays for car racing commitee stuff.....if i wasn't there, they'll be even less pleased....

...can we keep this lack of testing to ourselves??


[/Sarcasm mode, um, OFF]

[Harry Balszac]

[sarcasm mode ON]

Huh??? NOTHING has been tested?? uh oh.. ...I played hookey from work for a couple days to attend testing...and my client wasn't thrilled to find that I would be gone for two Saturdays for car racing commitee stuff.....if i wasn't there, they'll be even less pleased....

...can we keep this lack of testing to ourselves??
[/Sarcasm mode, um, OFF]
[/b]

Jake, tell me again about all the testing the 27mm SIR was put through before it was mandated?

Case closed.

[lateapex911]

Jake, tell me again about all the testing the 27mm SIR was put through before it was mandated?

Case closed.
[/b]

Oh, I see.....so,

Oh, yeah, that's right: NOTHING about this SIR debacle has either been tested .........[/b]

really means "They never bothered to actually test their first anounced size" in Harry Ballszack speak??

If NOTHING has been tested, fine, but you know better. Your posts are filled with little exagerations and outright mis-statemetns. Post what you mean.

[Harry Balszac]

Oh, I see.....so,
really means "They never bothered to actually test their first anounced size" in Harry Ballszack speak??

If NOTHING has been tested, fine, but you know better. Your posts are filled with little exagerations and outright mis-statemetns. Post what you mean.
[/b]

I posted what I meant, Jake, just as I did when I said the Circle The Wagons mentality is in full swing here.

Let's recap, shall we?

-the 27mm SIR was mandated...untested...Andy et al claimed it did not need testing...LOL
-the 27mm was mandated with the promise that it would not take away any power of non-max-effort motors
-then, the 29mm SIR was mandated, after independent tests of the 27mm proved it SUCKED
-the 29mm SIR was mandated without any instructions or testing of mounting procedures, etc.
-the 29mm SIR was mandated without any testing of its availability
-the 29mm was mandated with the promise that it would not take away any power of non-max-effort motors
-et cetera
-lather--rinse--repeat

All of the above turned out to be critical flaws of this "process". Do you see a pattern here?

No...of course you don't. Clearly, I'M the real problem here.

LOL. Do you guys know how this all makes you look to the customers?

[Bill Miller]

Hairy,

Just so we're clear on this, you favor a system that would allow people w/ less than max efforts to run at the front? If not, you shoudl be happy that the SIR behaves in a more linear fashion, across all prep levels. If you do favor such a system, please take your sense of entitlement elsewhere. And if don't want such a system, your continued harping about it means you're still after that pound of flesh that I mentioned earlier.

[kthomas]

"Just so we're clear on this, you favor a system that would allow people w/ less than max efforts to run at the front? "

Ha! Gee, isn't that what the RR shock ban was all about?

[Harry Balszac]

Hairy,

Just so we're clear on this, you favor a system that would allow people w/ less than max efforts to run at the front? If not, you shoudl be happy that the SIR behaves in a more linear fashion, across all prep levels. If you do favor such a system, please take your sense of entitlement elsewhere. And if don't want such a system, your continued harping about it means you're still after that pound of flesh that I mentioned earlier.
[/b]

Bill, first of all, I have no sense of "entitlement" of any sort. My view is, the best driver will win. Now, I know there are other parameters---big $ often aids lesser drivers in winning. But generally, the best driver does win, whether in ITS or SRF or WC or GAC or....well, you get the idea.

Second, read Kthomas' note above mine WRT the RR shock rule. Sort of makes sense, eh?

Third, I want a system that is FAIR and PASSES THE SNIFF TEST. The 29mm SIR may or may not be fair, but how we got to it definitely does NOT pass the sniff test.

And, as such, regardless of how many insiders we have telling us it is the "right" soution (see post 385 above for more on this...), it will NEVER pass the sniff test and will always be clouded. This is why I advocate discarding it & starting over, with implementation Jan 1, 2007, and NOT in 4 weeks.

We might get the exact same answer---that is fine! Again, if there is evidence that ITS E36 motors, in CURRECT competition, with current log books (i.e., which have passed tech for 2006), are making 210 RWHP, then obviously that is peak effort. However, how we got here is so flawed, fraught with missteps, and clouded by appearances of favoritism, conflicts of interest, and possible impropriety, that the ONLY fair, above-board way to get all of ITS on board with any decision, and the ONLY way top keep a large chunk of BMWs in ITS from leaving for good, is to start over.

And I am truly amazed at the opposition to this proposal. Or maybe not.

As for a pound of flesh? Nope, I do not want that. I want accountability...but even more than that, I want a clean, fresh, totally beyond reproach re-do.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, first of all, I have no sense of "entitlement" of any sort. My view is, the best driver will win. Now, I know there are other parameters---big $ often aids lesser drivers in winning. But generally, the best driver does win, whether in ITS or SRF or WC or GAC or....well, you get the idea.

Second, read Kthomas' note above mine WRT the RR shock rule. Sort of makes sense, eh?

Third, I want a system that is FAIR and PASSES THE SNIFF TEST. The 29mm SIR may or may not be fair, but how we got to it definitely does NOT pass the sniff test.

And, as such, regardless of how many insiders we have telling us it is the "right" soution (see post 385 above for more on this...), it will NEVER pass the sniff test and will always be clouded. This is why I advocate discarding it & starting over, with implementation Jan 1, 2007, and NOT in 4 weeks.

We might get the exact same answer---that is fine! Again, if there is evidence that ITS E36 motors, in CURRECT competition, with current log books (i.e., which have passed tech for 2006), are making 210 RWHP, then obviously that is peak effort. However, how we got here is so flawed, fraught with missteps, and clouded by appearances of favoritism, conflicts of interest, and possible impropriety, that the ONLY fair, above-board way to get all of ITS on board with any decision, and the ONLY way top keep a large chunk of BMWs in ITS from leaving for good, is to start over.

And I am truly amazed at the opposition to this proposal. Or maybe not.

As for a pound of flesh? Nope, I do not want that. I want accountability...but even more than that, I want a clean, fresh, totally beyond reproach re-do.
[/b]

Hairy,

The RR shock issue is not the same, and is a red herring. This was something that was taken off the table for EVERYBODY. Same thing happened w/ internal engine coatings. The CRB (CB at the time), decided that it was technology that didn't belong in IT. Katman's just still pissed about it. The E36 issue is not even close.

And I noticed that you didn't answer my question.

[Harry Balszac]

Bill, I in fact did answer your question. I want the whole thing redone.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I in fact did answer your question. I want the whole thing redone.
[/b]

Actually, you didn't answer my question. Believe me, nobody wants the SIR dumped more than I do. The car should run at its process weight, just like the rest of the cars in IT. And like the rest of the cars in IT, that's a process weight based on a full-tilt effort, not some 'average' effort.

[Harry Balszac]

Bill, we are going to have to agree to disagree about that one. You may be right--300 lbs may be the weight. I seriously doubt it, but it may. Or a 29mm SIR may be better. Who knows? Clearly, given the bungling to date, neither the ITAC nor the CRB do either.

[kthomas]

"The RR shock issue is not the same, and is a red herring. This was something that was taken off the table for EVERYBODY. Same thing happened w/ internal engine coatings. The CRB (CB at the time), decided that it was technology that didn't belong in IT. Katman's just still pissed about it. The E36 issue is not even close."

Looks the same to me. A retroactive rule to penalize the folks who had spent the money to develop a winning ride within the rules as they existed when they made the decision to spend the money. When the E36 became eligible, I know a lot of people who moved to that car from a previous car because they thought it would be better. No different than thinking a better shock will be better. The only difference is in the amount of money spent. I bought another engine due to the coatings rule. I bought another set of shocks due to the shock rule. I personally think the SIR is going to render the E36 uncompetitive, and regardless of the performance, it's another rule that costs somebody money. Remember, you didn't have to coat your engine, you didn't have to have RR shocks, you didn't have to buy a BMW. But once you do, rule changes shouldn't render your investment worthless. Once again the "have nots" still don't have to spend any more money but the "haves" do. Another tax on rich people levied by "have nots". True democracy in action, and the reason why democracies never last.

[Joe Harlan]

"The RR shock issue is not the same, and is a red herring. This was something that was taken off the table for EVERYBODY. Same thing happened w/ internal engine coatings. The CRB (CB at the time), decided that it was technology that didn't belong in IT. Katman's just still pissed about it. The E36 issue is not even close."

Looks the same to me. A retroactive rule to penalize the folks who had spent the money to develop a winning ride within the rules as they existed when they made the decision to spend the money. When the E36 became eligible, I know a lot of people who moved to that car from a previous car because they thought it would be better. No different than thinking a better shock will be better. The only difference is in the amount of money spent. I bought another engine due to the coatings rule. I bought another set of shocks due to the shock rule. I personally thing the SIR is going to render the E36 uncompetitive, and regardless of the performance, it's another rule that costs somebody money. Remember, you didn't have to coat your engine, you didn't have to have RR shocks, you didn't have to buy a BMW. But once you do, rule changes shouldn't render your investment worthless. Once again the "have nots" still don't have to spend any more money but the "haves" do. Another tax on rich people levied by "have nots". True democracy in action, and the reason why democracies never last.
[/b]

Katman, We almost agree except. It was one rule "classification of the E36" that made 100's of peoples investments worthless. Please explain why we should just accept that and buy a different brand. I had no issue RR SHocks, coatings ect. But when a car is misclassed and I feel misclassed with intent at the time. then something needs to be done. Maybe the right thing would have been to just declassify the thing and be done with it.

[lateapex911]

".......... Once again the "have nots" still don't have to spend any more money but the "haves" do. Another tax on rich people levied by "have nots". True democracy in action, and the reason why democracies never last.
[/b]

No. The ENTIRE PCA concept is what we are discussing here, NOT the slapping of "rich people" by a "poor" majority. The simple fact of the matter is that the BMW was misclassed....Too light for its potential. So was the CRX in ITA. Those two cars made backmarkers out of dozens of cars that had a reasonable shot before they were classed. Then the reaction to the error, at least in ITA, was to add "equivelent " classifications, like the Integra and the 240SX. Which pushed the "have nots" further down the grid. Where once you could be in the front 5 in a field, you were soon thrilled to be at the front of the "ITA lite" class, LOL, and if you were in the top ten in a race of 25, you were thrilled!

This has nothing to do with social or financial reasoning. PCAs were a method to right past misclassifications, plain and simple. The E36 is one of those misclassifications.

Let's not cloud a simple issue by dragging in political commentary.

[Bill Miller]

"The RR shock issue is not the same, and is a red herring. This was something that was taken off the table for EVERYBODY. Same thing happened w/ internal engine coatings. The CRB (CB at the time), decided that it was technology that didn't belong in IT. Katman's just still pissed about it. The E36 issue is not even close."

Looks the same to me. A retroactive rule to penalize the folks who had spent the money to develop a winning ride within the rules as they existed when they made the decision to spend the money. When the E36 became eligible, I know a lot of people who moved to that car from a previous car because they thought it would be better. No different than thinking a better shock will be better. The only difference is in the amount of money spent. I bought another engine due to the coatings rule. I bought another set of shocks due to the shock rule. I personally think the SIR is going to render the E36 uncompetitive, and regardless of the performance, it's another rule that costs somebody money. Remember, you didn't have to coat your engine, you didn't have to have RR shocks, you didn't have to buy a BMW. But once you do, rule changes shouldn't render your investment worthless. Once again the "have nots" still don't have to spend any more money but the "haves" do. Another tax on rich people levied by "have nots". True democracy in action, and the reason why democracies never last.
[/b]

C'mon katman, RR shocks, engine coatings, sequential trannies (prod), etc. are TECHNOLOGY issues. As has been pointed out, the E36 is a single-car classification issue. While I agree that the technology issues cost people money, it was a case of the powers that be deciding that those technologies were not appropriate for the class. We could go into all kinds of things, like how some of them got in in the first place.

[kthomas]

You have a valid arguement about misclassification, and I would agree its different than technology creep or whatever you want to call the other "retroactives", if a rule change had happened 5 or 6 years ago before a lot of people switched cars or invested a lot in the development of the BMW. Especially for a class who's intent doesn't involve maintaining competitiveness.

Sure will be interesting when we get an on track back to back test.

[lateapex911]

You have a valid arguement about misclassification, and I would agree its different than technology creep or whatever you want to call the other "retroactives", if a rule change had happened 5 or 6 years ago before a lot of people switched cars or invested a lot in the development of the BMW. Especially for a class who's intent doesn't involve maintaining competitiveness.

Sure will be interesting when we get an on track back to back test.
[/b]

As a guy who has been involved in the PCS concept since the begining, and even before that, I agree, it would have been great IF it had come earlier.

But the wheels turn slowly at times. And maybe the extra time was well spent, becuase to implement such a big change, such a significant philisophical shift, and to get it wrong, would ruin a pretty good thing.

(And while the "intent statement" hasn't actually changed to reflect things, it is safe to say that the ITAC and the CRB is dedicated to something along the lines of, "While there is no guarantee of competitiveness, we will try harder than ever before to acheive a reasonable level of fairness", or something to that effect.)

I said 4 years ago that 80% of the problems in IT were 20% of the cars. And I was being generous, as I really thought that 10 percent of the cars were causing 90% of the problems.

To take your comments further, while it would have been great to implement the PCAs sooner, it would have been even better to have classed the problem cars properly in the first place.

Whatever, we've come a LONG way, and in terms of "IT time", the change came quickly.

My concern is to look at the big picture, identify the next 80/20 issue that can be fixed, and make IT even better.

[Bill Miller]

You have a valid arguement about misclassification, and I would agree its different than technology creep or whatever you want to call the other "retroactives", if a rule change had happened 5 or 6 years ago before a lot of people switched cars or invested a lot in the development of the BMW. Especially for a class who's intent doesn't involve maintaining competitiveness.

Sure will be interesting when we get an on track back to back test.
[/b]

Couldn't agree w/ you more.

[mlytle]

C'mon katman, RR shocks, engine coatings, sequential trannies (prod), etc. are TECHNOLOGY issues. As has been pointed out, the E36 is a single-car classification issue. While I agree that the technology issues cost people money, it was a case of the powers that be deciding that those technologies were not appropriate for the class. We could go into all kinds of things, like how some of them got in in the first place.
[/b]

yep, those are technology issues. but one could also say the e36 is a technology issue. auto technology made huge gains in the 20 years between the 240z and the 325is. a simple hp/lb formula cannot capture the difference in potential between different generations of technology.