A word from the CRB on the recent changes...

[gpeluso]

Is it Datsun or Datson, ITS BEEN SO LONG BEFORE THE BRAND NAME WAS EVEN MANUFACTURED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



ANDY,
DID YOU SAY "UNCLE"

LOOK, IF YOU WANT TO COME OFF AS THE EXPERT, DON'T CRY LIKE ON BMW SITE THAT PEOPLE ARE ALL OVER YOU. I MEAN YOU POST ON ALMOST EVERY FRIGGIN TOPIC. I BET IF I WENT TO A "HOW TO BULID A SHED" WEBSITE YOU WOULD BE TELLING SOMEONE HOW YOU KNOW ALL. I THINK YOUR ARGUMENT WOULD JUSTIFY THAT "IT" DRIVERS TO USE THE SIR. BET MORE PEOPLE WILL BE PISSED. YOU WANTED TO RESPOND TO DAMN QUICK AND NOW ITS FALLING ON YOUR SHOULDERS.
WHEN DID THE '94-'95 MIATA GET CLASSED AS ITA? IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL SPOIL THE HONDA/ACURA'S.

GREG

Mike that is BS and you know it.

Pretty clear what the intent of IT is. The Z cars that are beating you are some of the best prepped and driven cars on the west coast and by your own admission you are far from a developed package.
[/b]

 

[turboICE]

WHEN DID THE '94-'95 MIATA GET CLASSED AS ITA? IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL SPOIL THE HONDA/ACURA'S.
[/b]

What is with all the YELLING?

Miata

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/05-10-fastrack.pdf

Discussed.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...c=5959&hl=Miata

Having gone through the process at classing (I believe) there shouldn't be any spoiling, just compeitition.

 

[dj10]

AB
I don't understand you point at all.
[/quote]

The people that have spent thousands of $ to develop their engines might as well just pissed that money away along with another $400 for the SIR. I also have a feeling that it will cost us alot more than $400 to get our engines running properly with the SIR.

 

[Bill Miller]

AB
I don't understand you point at all.
The people that have spent thousands of $ to develop their engines might as well just pissed that money away along with another $400 for the SIR. I also have a feeling that it will cost us alot more than $400 to get our engines running properly with the SIR.
[/b]

Well DJ, sounds like you guys would have preferred that 300# of lead.

What is with all the YELLING?[/b]

Because he's an idiot. :angry:

 

[dj10]

Well DJ, sounds like you guys would have preferred that 300# of lead.
[/b]

Acutally Bill, I want to know I'm going to spend $2,000 for the SIR and related development and not be running at 147 rwhp, which from a last minute decision, and from what I can see is only a hypotherotical situation for the BMW's. Bill if this effected you, would you want some more conclusive data?

 

[turboICE]

What are the details of this $2,000 budget?

I am trying to get my arms around how if there is no change in the mass of air entering the cylinder on the intake stroke at each rpm and load point until the sonic threshhold how you are going to need to spend additional money on the engine?

Other than physical fabrication for fit (one of the only honestly and sincerely posed querries in objection) where is all this need for additional development?

As I see it there are only a few rational explanations that fit the budget proposed?

The objector believes the air mass will be altered at points below the sonic treshhold requiring reoptimization on a dyno. In which case a whole lot of people who know fluid mechanics in application rather than theory and who are brighter than us, are wrong and you should submit a paper to a professional journal for peer review. In what manner has the flow been altered below the sonic threshhold - will VE be reduced in some manner or something else? Do you accept that air mass and flow are unaffected below the sonic threshhold?

If the objector accepts that the air mass is the same for each point beyond the sonic threshhold then there are two consequences which result in such a budget:

The objector was reliant on the HP peak which is going to be sheared off and feels there was area below that point which could receive additional attention to capture some of those losses. Not a problem for ITAC, CRB or BOD - the car had not been fully developed, the SIR did not cause that underdevelopment and the points below the cutoff have been unaffected.

The objector believes the sonic threshhold cutoff is lower than the target the process suggests. I have to believe this is something that would be addressed if shown to be the case. Would it be the first time there has been a rule mistake/correct by a sanctioning body that costs competitors, hardly. Its a fact of racing at all levels from the highest levels to solo 2.

So, which is your objection? The science is wrong? There are undeveloped aspects of your build which you are going to have to now address? The cutoff is going to be lower than the process suggested? Or do you believe the process has the wrong target? If the last one - then the E36 is the only model where there is any large belief in this. For myself I have to believe that the largest adjustments are the ones the ITAC put the most effort on. Whether through weight or SIR I have a high degree of confidence that the E36 target received the most review, thought and discussion.

 

[steve s]

since the SIR is to restrict power at the top end .and there seems to be a target HP in ITS, then why not require all ITS cars to require them and level the playing field. hp wise, then adjust weight by your formula????so all car would have the same formula for speed and competetiveness in this class????wouldn't this solve all the bickering between mazdas &bmws & datsuns???
from what i see everyone is looking at 1 or 2 bmws and the rest of the bmw field is suffering for this . but then look at the ARRC 1 rx7 was all over the bmwand within .1 of a second of the bmw why didn't all the rx7's out there not prepare like this guy did??? maybe you all should suffer because of this guy.just my .02 cents.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Is it Datsun or Datson, ITS BEEN SO LONG BEFORE THE BRAND NAME WAS EVEN MANUFACTURED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ANDY,
DID YOU SAY "UNCLE"

LOOK, IF YOU WANT TO COME OFF AS THE EXPERT, DON'T CRY LIKE ON BMW SITE THAT PEOPLE ARE ALL OVER YOU. I MEAN YOU POST ON ALMOST EVERY FRIGGIN TOPIC. I BET IF I WENT TO A "HOW TO BULID A SHED" WEBSITE YOU WOULD BE TELLING SOMEONE HOW YOU KNOW ALL. I THINK YOUR ARGUMENT WOULD JUSTIFY THAT "IT" DRIVERS TO USE THE SIR. BET MORE PEOPLE WILL BE PISSED. YOU WANTED TO RESPOND TO DAMN QUICK AND NOW ITS FALLING ON YOUR SHOULDERS.
WHEN DID THE '94-'95 MIATA GET CLASSED AS ITA? IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL SPOIL THE HONDA/ACURA'S.

GREG


[/b]

Nope, I simply said that everything you are bringing up has been discussed. Take some time to read.

I have no problem with anyone being all over me - as long as they are willing to stop and look at teh big picture.

Please seperate the CRB and the ITAC. Do us all a favor.

The Miata will do nothing of the sort, it is just another LEGITIMATE option in ITA now. ITA is the best class in terms of balance right now.

You are starting to sound like you don't want to hear what we all know to be true.

AB

 

[turboICE]

since the SIR is to restrict power at the top end .and there seems to be a target HP in ITS, then why not require all ITS cars to require them and level the playing field. hp wise, then adjust weight by your formula????so all car would have the same formula for speed and competetiveness in this class????[/b]

I think that understates and simplifies the issue.

If all other popular cars are limited within the ruleset to power that can be managed by weight alone why add the restriction. Everyone knows that fully prepared IT legal E36 was able to generate power beyond that expected when it was classed and would result in an undesirable total weight. The reason not to slap SIRs on all cars was expressed very clearly - the weight necessary to balance their power was reasonable.

As I see it the only option over the SIR was to kick the E36 out of IT as being beyond the range IT currently supports. This could have either been done by burdening the car with so much weight there would be no desire to field one or to explicitly remove it from classing. While SIRs may discourage some from participating I think the decision that was made provides the best solution for this car that were it being asked to be classed for the first time today might not have been listed at all.

I think it is unfair to characterize those who made the decision as anything but forthright - I think those who made the conclusion were pained to make it, but were sincerely looking to the good for all participants. A decision to just throw weight at the issue would have had much more dire circumstances, one supra example jeez weight does matter people.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't know Ed. Declassifying the is the last thing to do, adding 'enough' weight so that people stop running it is not an option either.

There are two options:
1. Run it through the process that all the other cars have been through, and set it's weight without a restrictor - like the other cars.
2. Restrict it enough so that it fits the 'prcess' in a backward manner - given a fixed weight target, not a fixed power/weight target.

The most 'fair' thing - for the class - to do is to have it weigh what it should. The most 'fair' thing for E36 drivers is to put an SIR on it at 2850. They get to keep the gift race weight, all the awesome torque but chop off the power that would seperate it from the pack.

I understand the issues with both ideas...what is the best and most fair idea?

AB

 

[dj10]

Answer me this: Why is it only BMW guys can't see there is a problem to address?
AB
[/b]

I think most BMW racer are ticked because the so called solution is over simpified and expensive poorly timed and hypothetical. I'm willing to try anything, I just don't want it to be unnecessary, make me uncompetitive and expensive. I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot you would agree. The restrictor plate was costly when you figured in travel, dyno time and special chips burnt. Why would this be any different? Before you answer this.....call a BMW engine builder and ask them. As for myself I'm not mad at anyone as much as I am disappointed in the process.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think most BMW racer are ticked because the so called solution is over simpified and expensive poorly timed and hypothetical. I'm willing to try anything, I just don't want it to be unnecessary, make me uncompetitive and expensive. I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot you would agree. The restrictor plate was costly when you figured in travel, dyno time and special chips burnt. Why would this be any different? Before you answer this.....call a BMW engine builder and ask them. As for myself I'm not mad at anyone as much as I am disappointed in the process.
[/b]

While I understand you 100%, and I sympathise, you have to understand that this 'oversimplified' process is the same for everyone. No slight of hand, no juggling act - the S _ A _ M _ E.

Write in and tell them what you want - SIR or weight. Don't be dissapointed unless the SIR fails you. Right now, give the CRB the benefit of the doubt - it's not black magic here. If I were concerned about development costs, I would just ask them to ditch the SIR and run me through the process. 3200 is what it will come to.

AB

 

[turboICE]

I don't know Ed. Declassifying the is the last thing to do, adding 'enough' weight so that people stop running it is not an option either.[/b]

Clearly undesirable, unpracticable and probably not considered. Exhibiting by extreme that there wasn't much other choice than the SIR at this point. I would have bought a DOHC two years ago until I was hammered into understanding that there was no ITS at that time just club E36. And I spend enough on my street E30 iX without trying to race the BMW marque.

 

[lateapex911]

Jake,

Congats!!!!! If you are pointing your finger at a cheater here and not at the track at SCCA events.[/b]

I'm not sure what you mean here, as the grammer has lost me, but I'll live dangerously and try to respond.
First, my quote said, "I won't say he's cheating, but you CAN"T base a case on ONE guy at ONE race!..."

Substitute "...not going to..", or "I'm not saying.." for "won't" if you like.

The point of that statement, which I can't believe I have to spell out yet again, and even more clearly, is that we are basing a system that relies on empirical numbers to create a product. We DON'T go to the track, look at who won that day, and say, "Yup, better slap some weight on the Sprazter Flyby R". And the actual point of the statement is that individual results themselves, much less ONE car, aren't representative of the actual trend. Look, go back to any of a zillion threads on the PCA concept and process if you really are truly interested in the backgound and the "whys" to the process.

Now, if you are calling me out for not protesting him at the event, here's a few reasons for you to choose from:
-I wasn't an entrant there.
-I don't know how he might have been cheating
-And I NEVER said he WAS cheating!
:119:

Again, I was merely pointing out that ONE car can't be used as a valid argument, especially for a numbers based system!

You are ruining the argument that a BMW is clearly an overgog. The way I look at it is this gentlemen showing us the full potential of the RX7. Great place to call someone a cheater and give absolutely now evidence![/b]

Again, either adjust your reading glasses, slow down and actually comprehend and think about what you are reading, or just stop putting words in my mouth. Whatever works for you, just do it. See above comments regarding my NOT calling the car illegal.

By the way, I am looking at the numbers based on what Andy supplied(And you know his RX7 is slower than the one we are talking about) . When I talked to one of the best BMW engine builders he claimed his engine s were putting out between 189-194hp. Isn't the BMW weight more than the RX7. I'm lost, where is the hole you speak of.[/b]

Hmmmmm....should I??

OK...I better not.

The "hole" I spoke of doesn't, in my mind, exist. YOU need to find it. If there is a legitimate problem with the process, find it and write up a COHERANT letter, and send it on in to the ITAC for consideration.

IF you understood Any's numbers, then your response would make sense. Is your figure WHP? CHP? What build level is that? Again, your nuber is one data point, and not even a legitimate one as the specifics are unknown. Refer to Andy's post for the larger picture.

By the way, while your at it ,who else are you calling a cheater!
Greg


[/b]

grow up, debate the facts, and stop fabricating the truth and twisting others words..

 

[dj10]

Don't be dissapointed unless the SIR fails you. Right now, give the CRB the benefit of the doubt - it's not black magic here.
AB
[/b]

Don't worry, you will know if it works or not and if the costs justify the means.

 

[lateapex911]

Ed's points are very well made.

But, just for giggles, I'll ask interested parties to vote in a new thread/poll, which I will call, "The E36 solution"....

 

[Bill Miller]

I think most BMW racer are ticked because the so called solution is over simpified and expensive poorly timed and hypothetical.[/b]

So get together w/ the rest of the E36 drivers and write to the CRB and tell them that you want the 300# of lead! Doesn't get much simpler than that, can be installed in about an hour, will probably cost <$100, and it's a pretty safe bet as to what the impact will be.

I'm really sick of your whining dj. You throw numbers like $2000 costs and 146 whp around w/ less information than you lambast the CRB and ITAC for not using. You don't want lead, you don't want an SIR, you just want to keep running at the front w/ a mediocre effort. You know what, go race w/ NASA.

The E36 drivers got special treatment w/ the SIR, rather than having to race at their process spec weight, like everyone else. Yet these guys want more.

To the ITAC, I'm really sorry that you guys ever floated the idea of the SIR to the CRB. These guys should have gotten their 300# of lead, and this thread would have died after 3 pages!

 

[gpeluso]

I have a secret...I know this guy...he cheats. But he hasn't been caught. So does that make him legal? NO! Why hasn't he been caught you ask? Because nobody has bothered to protest him...usually there aren't enough engine peices still assembled to each other after a race to base a protest on!

Listen...use some logic. Not getting caught does NOT equal legality!

And it's all BS anyway....this isn't about results, its about a numerical process.

Shoot logical, well founded holes in the process, and you will make ground.
[/b]

 

[Joe Harlan]

So get together w/ the rest of the E36 drivers and write to the CRB and tell them that you want the 300# of lead! Doesn't get much simpler than that, can be installed in about an hour, will probably cost <$100, and it's a pretty safe bet as to what the impact will be.

I'm really sick of your whining dj. You throw numbers like $2000 costs and 146 whp around w/ less information than you lambast the CRB and ITAC for not using. You don't want lead, you don't want an SIR, you just want to keep running at the front w/ a mediocre effort. You know what, go race w/ NASA.

The E36 drivers got special treatment w/ the SIR, rather than having to race at their process spec weight, like everyone else. Yet these guys want more.

To the ITAC, I'm really sorry that you guys ever floated the idea of the SIR to the CRB. These guys should have gotten their 300# of lead, and this thread would have died after 3 pages!
[/b]

So Bill, What make you so sure the ITAC floated the idae to the CRB first....?

I will ask this question for all you folks that say 3100 lbs would be a piece of cake. Have you every raced a car over 3000 lbs? I have and I have done it recently. 3368 with driver and 8.5 inch wide wheels.
245 40 18's even with that much tire the car is giving up about 12 mins into a race. SIR's are here to stay and I for one am all for it. And the argument that weight would be easier is complete BS. You can safely mount your SIR without fear of it flying around in the drivers compartment. The Sir is not going to double your tire brake and bering budget in the first 3 races. Lastly the SIR will reduce your operrating costing by lowering usable rev rage of your motor...All the the additional sniveling is just that sniveling. Again I have made the real offer of half day of shop service and help with proper install on the first car to ask. Anybody else done anything other than bitch about this deal. Lets get it on and get to racing.

DJ I don't need to call a bimmer engine builder. I build all kinds of different engines. They all have something in common. The more air you give them the more power they can make. Take air away and the reverse happens.

 

[Fastfred92]

I think the SIR is fine and dandy if it works as billed, but make this thing go away by simply adding a SIR on the Mazda sized to its magical hp limit ( I think I have seen 200 or 210 hp floated around here).. This problem will go away as the "perfect" ITS car will have a absolute max output as well. Slowly add SIR's ( using the "process" numbers) to ITS cars that seem to come out of nowhere then. Eventually ITS will have a legit hp ceiling....