Not at all. Nobody promised that if it disn't work exactly as billed it was no longer an option.
[/b]
Fine. But since it has not worked as promised, the implementation method should be changed accordingly. This has not happened. I find it odd, to say the least, that sufficient data was collected to change the SIR sizing but that data is not being released despite the extremely short period provided to racers in which to make the required changes. As with so many other aspects of this SNAFU, I find it highly suspect.
Just copy and paste it here like I did so we can review it once more.
[/b]
It's an estimate. It's not based on hokey, over simplified, meaningless math like yours is.
Your presentation is excellent but I admit I am no engineer.
[/b]
No kidding. If you were, you'd have never allowed your mouth to write checks your ass can't cash. You'd have known full well that making declarative statements about how the SIR would function without testing first was a bad move. It's a shame that you lack the brass to accept the proper responsibility for those statements. Frankly, your unwillingness to even attempt to do the right thing - to accept some responsibility and try to STOP the implementation of the rule change indicates to me that fairness is indeed not what you seek. Instead you've simply shrugged and pointed the finger at Finch and CRB.
If this is the way the CRB wants to go, I would support a spec intake set-up 100% sold through SCCA Enterprises.
[/b]
It seems likely to me that this is the only tenable means by which to impelement an SIR program in this case.
This isn't an exact science. It's an estimation. You can see by the numbers that the weight suggestion of 3200 lbs has been 'normalized based in a few factors. 1. Larger brakes have little advantage when weight climes with respect to other cars.2. 3169 is the weight BEFORE consideration of HUGE torque and perfect tranny ratios - (anyone else have a 1:1 5th?). I think you will find that an even 3200 is very reasonable. The problem here is that people look at 2850 as the 'correct' weight to begin with and that is so far from the case.
[/b]
You mean the brakes that are smaller and have an inferior caliper design compared to the 944?
Once again, you have either failed to address my point or have ignored it for convinience.
Months ago I became involved in posting on this subject because I was beginning to build an ITS car. From that time I have conceeded that the E36 needed an adjustment. Despite that relatively moderate position, I have received nothing but arrogant and scornfull replies devoid of meaningful response. That even those who would agree with you and try to work out a fair and equitable compromise are treated with scorn and ridicule is telling. That when the changes you propone fail to produce the stated effect (I use the word stated, not intended) you continue on with them is a crystal clear indication of what is going on.
I have continued to post in various threads on this topic without any direct interest either on track or financial. I have done so only in a desire to see fairness played out for people unable to speak as freely as I due to fear of future retaliation. Frankly, it is clear that all is lost at this point. The rule is promulgated and the date certain set. I would love to be wrong, but am convinced that the E36 325 is dead in ITS as a competitive car. You win, Andy. The RX7 will again be dominant...until Glenn Yi sells the two 944's he's got, at which point this will all begin again with the 944 squarely in your sights.
