April SIR ruling

[lateapex911]

Jake, I was nothing but polite to Bob. Are you suggesting otherwise?

And, I have made the official request.
[/b]

I would say that "rude" is a relative term. But repeated posting with the last one being: "What say you, Bob???" an hour and twenty minutes after your intitial request is not what I would define as "Anything but polite". Maybe I too need a thicker skin. (Read that as sarcastic)

 

[seckerich]

Steve, you could not be more wrong.

I have never, EVER said that ANY car should have an unfair advantage.

It amazes me how many people here seem to lack reading comprehension.

Once again: the SIR was PROMISED to NOT have ANY negative performance effect for lower-power motors. All those who questioned this promise were derided & poo-pooed, both here & on other forums.

Now, it appears this promise was total BS. A 180hp car delivered 161hp with the SIR, a situation which was PROMISED to us would NOT happen. The above is a REAL FACT.

And all you can do is backpedal & blame the victim. And change the subject. No matter how many times I post this very clear point, the response is always a dodge or a redirect. Very telling.

These sentences say it all about you, Steve: "Come back when you have real data and facts to show how your poor car was affected--until then you seem to really resemble your screen name more and more because you have been somewhat of a Prick since your first post."

Yeah...whatever you say, Steve. Nice personal attack to try to cloud the real issue.

This is perfect: we have one person who thinks he is not sure we, the Great Unwashed Racers, are "entitled" to testing data for other SIR sizes. We have one person directly involved in this SIR process who does not think transcripts of ITCA meetings discussing this issue are "needed" by us, the Great Unwashed Racers. We have severl people who are more concerned with my real name, my occupation, and how many posts I have, than anything else. And we have at least one person (you) who prefers personal attacks instead of dealing with the real issues.
[/b]

Real issue is that you never should, nor should you now be ENTITLED to have the same HP in an underdeveloped motor. The fact you were ever sold that BS is the problem.

 

[Bill Miller]

Mmm-kay, Steve. Whatever.

My point WRT the Stickley motor was obviously lost in translation, so here it is again:

The SIR was promised NOT to have ANY detrimental effect on motors not making (IIRC) 210hp unrestricted.

This has been proven a lie.

Bill's starting HP is irrelevant, except it proves the lie.

And, instead of scrapping this whole suspect process, and the resultant decision-du-jour, and starting over--which is what fair, rational, unbiased people would do--SCCA has chosen to bury its collective head in the sand & say "our way or the highway" while they blame Raetech for their own....performance.

I, frankly, don't care whether Bill got a good or bad motor. I do, however, care that he lost 20hp in a circumstance that ITAC & CRB promised would NOT happen.

Am I being more clear now?
[/b]

So Ball Sack, just so we understand your position, you think it ok to have a less than full-tilt motor program that can make as much power as a full-tilt version w/ a restrictor? I've had issue w/ the claim that the SIR would only lop power off the top of the most developed motors, yet have no impact on ones that weren't developed to make more than the SIR-limit hp. I was skeptical that it would actually work that way, and I thought it BS that you let people still be able to run at the front w/o a full-tilt effort.

If you're all caught up in the fact that the claim about the SIR was wrong, maybe you'll be writing a letter to the CRB to have them throw the SIR out and put 300# in the car instead. You seem so concerned that the E36 has been singled out, I would expect you to fully support treating the car the same way every other IT car is treated, which is to run at the process-specified weight.

If you're looking for a pound of flesh because incorrect claims were made about how the SIR would perform, you should be looking at David Finch, Raetech, and the CRB.

What's funny, is that you don't understand why someone that hides behind a bogus screen name, and demands people provide him w/ transcripts and information, doesn't get taken seriously.

 

[JamesB]

HAHAHAHAHA!1 Funniest post of the day!

let me see if I understand what you are saying here: Bob posts on this public forum (not a "proper official channel" LOL at the term). I respond & ask him for more information, and then follow up.

And this is rude? It offended you?

Are you joking here? Do you not see how absurd that suggestion is? Do you usually have an abnormally thin skin?

Let me be blunt: if this is not the forum to discuss this, then Bob should not have posted here. But he did, and my response was anything but rude.

If it offended you, perhaps you need to man up and grow some sack. A thicker skin would serve you well.
[/b]

You wont read the whole response but let me get this out anyway as I need something to consume my lunch hour.

He posted a closed statement. That the decision was made, and results will be published.

You go and ask for meeting minutes and all of the test results not just the results of the chosen SIR size. Understandable request, but one that I would never expect to see a public response on immediatly or outside of standard CRB proceedure and practice. I don't fault you for your request but lets face it, a public board request wont get you everything your seeking and even you know it.

And THEN you get rude/offensive. A matter of hours later you post in a way that can only be read and impatience that this information did not exit the floodgates and flow into the thread.

But what do you do, you reply with personal attacts on me for pointing out your impatience. You go on telling me to grow a pair and thicker skin. Thank you, I never got such a great laugh on a reply to me in ages. You don't know 1 thing about me other then my name and last initial. But wait a minute, you prefer to hide all of that. You are the classic online badger, you attack anyone who disagrees with you in any way. Enjoy your game, im done with you.

 

[Harry Balszac]

Hey, Billy Goat, I have posted my real name several times. Why on earth is it even remotely relevant?

Your bitterness is evident. Seek help--it'll eat you up.

I do not blame Raetech. They are trying to sell product. I blame SCCA for taking their marketing spiel without ANY sort of due diligence, and then crapping all over those of us (including yourself, it seems) who did not believe the claims.

And, in that light, I believe the entire process is flawed from start to finish. My position, which I have advocated to CRB, is to trash-can the decision & start over wiht REAL data, REAL transparancy, and REAL avoidance of any and all conflicts of interest.

James, I am sorry: I was not aware that slight impatience equated to "rude/offensive" behavior. You & I apparently have different definitions of the latter.

As for this claim: "You are the classic online badger, you attack anyone who disagrees with you in any way"? Sorry, James, but this is simply not true. Rather the opposite---I have been repeatedly attacked for raising legitimate questions about this entire process.

 

[seckerich]

Hey, Billy Goat, I have posted my real name several times. Why on earth is it even remotely relevant?

Your bitterness is evident. Seek help--it'll eat you up.

I do not blame Raetech. They are trying to sell product. I blame SCCA for taking their marketing spiel without ANY sort of due diligence, and then crapping all over those of us (including yourself, it seems) who did not believe the claims.

And, in that light, I believe the entire process is flawed from start to finish. My position, which I have advocated to CRB, is to trash-can the decision & start over wiht REAL data, REAL transparancy, and REAL avoidance of any and all conflicts of interest.

James, I am sorry: I was not aware that slight impatience equated to "rude/offensive" behavior. You & I apparently have different definitions of the latter.
[/b]

Then try one post that does not call names, accuse someone of something, or just again be a jerk (Billygoat?) and you might even get some real responses. Try starting over with a little class.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Hey, Billy Goat, I have posted my real name several times. Why on earth is it even remotely relevant?

Your bitterness is evident. Seek help--it'll eat you up.

I do not blame Raetech. They are trying to sell product. I blame SCCA for taking their marketing spiel without ANY sort of due diligence, and then crapping all over those of us (including yourself, it seems) who did not believe the claims.

And, in that light, I believe the entire process is flawed from start to finish. My position, which I have advocated to CRB, is to trash-can the decision & start over wiht REAL data, REAL transparancy, and REAL avoidance of any and all conflicts of interest.

James, I am sorry: I was not aware that slight impatience equated to "rude/offensive" behavior. You & I apparently have different definitions of the latter.
[/b]

So Dave Scott , Same Dave Scott driving for anchor racing?

 

[Bill Miller]

Hey, Billy Goat, I have posted my real name several times. Why on earth is it even remotely relevant?[/b]

Harry (can I call you Sack for short?), that's pretty funny. I'll get a good laugh out of that one for a while.

Your bitterness is evident. Seek help--it'll eat you up.
[/b]

You're the one that seems fixated on getting your pound of flesh

I do not blame Raetech. They are trying to sell product. I blame SCCA for taking their marketing spiel without ANY sort of due diligence, and then crapping all over those of us (including yourself, it seems) who did not believe the claims.[/b]

Probably the single most intelligent thing you've posted to date. I couldn't agree w/ you more. That being said, your anger at the ITAC is mis-directed.

And, in that light, I believe the entire process is flawed from start to finish. My position, which I have advocated to CRB, is to trash-can the decision & start over wiht REAL data, REAL transparancy, and REAL avoidance of any and all conflicts of interest.[/b]

So I expect to be reading your letter requesting that the SIR be scraped and the lead added.

James, I am sorry: I was not aware that slight impatience equated to "rude/offensive" behavior. You & I apparently have different definitions of the latter.
[/b]

Let me guess, you're an only child.

 

[lateapex911]

......You are the classic online badger, ......[/b]

James, that's great! The perfect term. I'll have to remember that.


A general comment...

I have problems with some of the terms being tossed about. Like "We were sold" and "we were promised"...

"Sold"??? Funny, what benefit have I gotten from the sale? I see no profit in any kind. Actually, it has cost me nearly a thousand dollars in lost revenue to attend the tests, and cash from my pocket to drive the 6 hours to and from the tests. Sold? I did no selling, and really, what really took place??? Because you were "sold" something, you then gave permission to spec the SIR? The CRB did what they felt was right, regardless of you giving permission, or being sold anything. Please..."sold"??

And "promise", if Andy or George or Darin or I was asked, "Do you promise that this thing won't affect any car in any way under XX hp", would we say "Yes, I promise..."??? NO..of course not!!!! I always try to make my statements with a "I have been told...." or a "From what I understand...." in front of them....which is NOT a promise. And sorry, to accept such comments from a guy like Andy, who works in sales, or me who designs and builds, is really lack of due diligence on the accepter..we are clearly not CFD guys!

But really, WHY is it such a big deal? WHY is THIS car, and why does THIS bunch of complaining posters feel they are entitled to be angry that this car isn't getting preferential treatment????

(Please read my words to exclude the posters and BMW owners who are not making such statements and complaints....my comments are NOT directed at you)


Whrere's Greg Amy?? he should throw a post in here. A little unbiased commentary would be a good thing I think.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

While the presentation from Mr. Scott has been amusing, we do have to make sure this error gets corrected, and that is what is happening. So, let's start from scratch. Let's forget what was specificed from Raetech, what was handed down by the CRB, and what was supported and defended by the ITAC. I do want to say that anyone who was told to 'go do the research' on the technology - should have. And what they would have found would have been the SAME EXACT thing we were told from the beginning. Only testing could have proved it wrong - it did - we admit there was a mistake made and the CRB is moving forward.

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?

AB

 

[Harry Balszac]

Then try one post that does not call names, accuse someone of something, or just again be a jerk (Billygoat?) and you might even get some real responses. Try starting over with a little class.
[/b]

Steve, I started with class. I was shat upon for, among other things, not posting my real name & my # of posts.

You are sadly one-sided in your outrage. And still, the real issues I have raised remain ignored. Ironic that I keep trying to bring the conversation back to them, and I keep getting attacked, isn't it?

Bill, I am honestly glad we see some common ground. I am also glad you saw the humor in our mutual name-joking.

I want no pound of flesh, Bill. However, I do believe accountability is sorely lacking in this situation. All I see is repeated wagon-circling & attack-the-messenger(s). Yes, you will see my letter. And no, I am not an only child. Next?

Joe, you are correct--that's me. Do we know each other? Is my affiliation with Anchor in any way relevant?

LateApex, here is why this is such a "big deal": this rule change (first 27mm, now 29mm), due in 5 weeks, costs major $$$ for the BMW ITSers. When it is unproven, ill-conceived, and based on bullshit, being required to spend big bucks for crap is going to be...um...unpopular.

 

[NewBie99]

So Dave Scott , Same Dave Scott driving for anchor racing?[/b]

Yee gods, if I looked like this I'd be acting like a spoiled brat too:

Hey, they tell me that "only steers and queers come from Texas...and you don't much look like a steer to me so that kinda narrows it down..."

Got a joke for you: What's the difference between a BMW and a porcupine? The pricks are on the OUTSIDE of a porcupine!!

This is fun...even for my first post...

 

[Harry Balszac]

Wow. A picture of my ugly mug, and homosexual jokes about my state of residence, as well as junior high jokes about (insert favorite imported luxury/sports car brand name here).

Yeah....I am sure the bad guy here, aren't I?

This speaks volumes about the vaildity of some of the points I and others are raising when this is the best you guys can come up with in response.

Over-compensate much, boys? Got something to hide? LOL.

Gee, New Guy, why won't you use your real name, rather than hiding behind your just-created alias?

Priceless immaturity.

 

[benspeed]

This is the most pathetic thread ever. The lowest of the low - posting a photo of somebody using a bogus account and slandering?

I'm pulling a Greg Amy and forgetting this site for awhile - maybe the children with the short attention spans will leave and the site will become appropriate for adults again.

 

[JamesB]

Please dont group the active board memebers with him, he registered in Feb 2006 and has a post count of 1!?!? Not what I would say is one of the active discussing memebers of this board.

 

[lateapex911]

Steve, I started with class. [/b]

Starting off calling yourself a name that reads "Hairy Ballsack" might be 'class' in a trailer park...but it doesn't show respect or integrity to me. I would have erred on the conservative side...but clearly you chose what you chose for reasons. We will differ on this. I think others will too.

.... Ironic that I keep trying to bring the conversation back to them, and I keep getting attacked, isn't it?
[/b]

No, your comments have been responded to ...again and again...but they differ from your opinion.

Yes, you will see my letter. [/b]

Actually, Bill won't see it, unless it is published in Sportscar. Bill is an involved participant, but not a member of the ITAC or CRB or BoD.

LateApex, here is why this is such a "big deal": this rule change (first 27mm, now 29mm), due in 5 weeks, costs major $$$ for the BMW ITSers. When it is unproven, ill-conceived, and based on bullshit, being required to spend big bucks for crap is going to be...um...unpopular.
[/b]

Ahhhhhhhhh.. NOW we're getting somehwere.

Agreed, the timing sucks and the money does too, but we've been down this road before...months ago. As a member of the ITAC I requested that this E36 situation be resolved last year, and have requested due haste at every juncture since then. The CRB has put a lot of time and money into it as well. This has seen more atttention than most other issues, and the testing has been unprecedented. I know you don't care, and that it's the bottom line that you care about.

Well, the bottom line here is that you have no PROOF that it is unproven, ill conceived and based on BS. If you do...please present it. (And stating that the underprepared cars are affected and aren't getting the freebie they were "promised", doesn't hold water in the discussion of wheter or not the SIR will result in a car that fits the process)

And the absence of proof and data sheets that show the validity of the procedure is NOT proof that any of your above statements are true.

 

[Harry Balszac]

Aw, geez, Jake.

First of all, pardon the hell out of me for trying to inject a little bit of humor into this stuff with the user name I chose. If you are going to make issue with that, have a field day. You will get no further responses from me on that, because it is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT.

Second, sorry but I am not inclined to disprove a negative just for your amusement. Public promises were made, public derision was ladled thickly upon those who questioned and/or doubted, and now further public derision is being ladled upon those who want some accountability for this debacle, instead of blaming Raetech and Bill Kim. People are being forced to either spend huge sums for technology that, so far, has proven NOT to perform as advertised by the rulemakers, or to leave ITS.

And all you have is circular arguments trying to redefine what "is" is?

That, and some of the other crap that this thread has seen (including posting my photograph), is only proving my points, Jake. Y'all need to step back to really see what is going on.

 

[Greg Krom]

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]

Couldn't the option be written into the IT specs for the car so that each individual racer can choose his or her poison? It could be as simple as listing two different weights on the spec line - 3050 unrestricted or 2850 restricted.

Right now, based on the data that we've seen so far, I think that SIR's have NO BUSINESS being mandated for any IT car. If it was available as an option that would be one thing, but I think requiring it is simply unreasonable, especially with very little time to implement it.

At this juncture, I think offering the BMW racers a choice of restrictions is the only fair and equitable way to resolve this situation - that is the best thing for IT as a whole.

 

[buldogge]

Hey Jake... You're right I don't know yet...and I won't know until I order and implement the 29mm SIR...

Seeing as how there was confusion/mis-information, I wasn't about to order a 27mm SIR (smart move apparently) and now I have a motnh and a week to implement a restrictor that desn't know where it wants to be placed or what kind of tuning it needs...oh, I forgot...I better order a MOTEC too (not gonna happen in the current climate here).

You know...you highlight a perfect example of JUST WHY the release of the other dynos (strong baseline motor among them I hope/assume?) would benefit ALL of us!

But.....how do you know that your full tilt motor WON't make 185 RWHP???

Again, this entire mess is about how a couple guys feel robbed, and that the underprepared acrs are not given a freebie.

That they are entitled to better treatment than any other car, because the organizers were foolish enough to try to make the racing better....

WHY are the guys below the curve any more entitled than me or any other non E36 driver????
[/b]

 

[seckerich]

Couldn't the option be written into the IT specs for the car so that each individual racer can choose his or her poison? It could be as simple as listing two different weights on the spec line - 3050 unrestricted or 2850 restricted.

Right now, based on the data that we've seen so far, I think that SIR's have NO BUSINESS being mandated for any IT car. If it was available as an option that would be one thing, but I think requiring it is simply unreasonable, especially with very little time to implement it.

At this juncture, I think offering the BMW racers a choice of restrictions is the only fair and equitable way to resolve this situation - that is the best thing for IT as a whole.
[/b]

Write the letter Greg and I am with you 100%. That is the best option I have seen to date. Think the SIR is bad and you make tons of power- go with the weight. If not give the sir a shot and tune away. Seems win - win to me. No problem with dual prep lines in the ITCS for this big mess. Sanity has returned!!