April SIR ruling

[Greg Krom]

Tom,

The idea in concept has merit. The only issue is that there is no precident for it and it may open up a flurry of requests for similar allowances. If the CRB thinks it is the best thing for the E36 guys and the rest of IT, they may bite. Write in to the CRB (crb AT scca.com) and tell them you think it would be a good thing.

3050 is simply too light according to the process. I think it would look more like 29mm @ 2850 or no RP @ 3200.

AB
[/b]

Actually 3050 is almost exactly correct according to the process as you've documented it, even using the high end of the power/weight scale for ITS (12.9). That is a 200lb increase over the cars current weight - a very significant correction to the original misclassification. It will accomplish the goal of bringing the E36 closer to the rest of the field and will do so by treating it exactly like every other car in ITS.

I understand that you are applying a different multiplier for the E36 since it "responds better" to IT prep. In my opinion, that is invalid and subjective, especially added to the fact that you use the high end of the desired power/weight scale as well.

How many other cars were given different multipliers than 1.25 (higher or lower)? How many other cars have been tested with Motec and all of the full prep bling that take a car from 95% prep to full bore, no excuses 100%? Who's to say that there aren't examples of RX7, Integra GSR, 240Z... that have shown similar yields, or will if prepared to the same degree?

In order for a classification process to be unquestionably valid it needs to utilize consistent multipliers, across the board. If testing has shown that the average IT build yields a 25% (or 22% or 27%...) increase over stock than that is the number that needs to be used for ALL classifications, that way all of the cars in a given class will have the same bogey power to weight ratio. The ability of certain cars, or individual builders, to legally meet or exceed that bogey number will then determine the good cars versus the bad.

If at 3050 the BMW 325 is still the best car in ITS when built to the absolute maximum, then so what? It will have been classified in the same manner, using the same math, as every other car in ITS. To me, that would be perfectly fair and the other cars in ITS would have ZERO grounds for complaint. And in my opinion, the BMW owners should have ZERO grounds for complaint or quitting either.

At that weight you will not see partially prepped 325's running with or beating fully prepped RX7's, 240Z, etc. The performance should be comparable based on the relative prep of each vehicle. Thats the idea here - right?

By changing the multiplier for certain cars you are opening yourselves up to crys of "foul".

Off subject, sort of, but what are the bogey power to weight numbers for ITA, B and C?

 

[Joe Harlan]

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.
It's an estimate. It's not based on hokey, over simplified, meaningless math like yours is.
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.
It seems likely to me that this is the only tenable means by which to impelement an SIR program in this case.

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.
[/b]

Dave, I assume that when you are proven wrong you will be back here ready to publicly apologize for dragging people good names through the mud? If I for one moment thought this had anything to do with making the Mazda an overdog I would be the first one screaming about it. There are really people out there that can separate their personal interests from the job they are doing. This is a large committee of guys that are made up of all kinds of cars and classes....It is time to get over it and figure out how to make the thing work as you stated the rule is in play now.

 

[dj10]

Hi Dave,
DJ,

Your question was asked during the Club Racing town hall meeting at the convention. I'm afraid I didn't catch the gentleman's name but I'll be glad to give you the same answer here. If we're wrong it will be fixed. Its certainly more important we get this right then it is that the CRB save face by standing behind a bad decision. Of course I can understand you being skeptical and I certainly would have preferred I didn't miss the size to start with. I'd like to thank the folks that provided us with the quick feedback and solid data that showed the initial sizing to be wrong. I remain convinced its better to restrict the power then to add that much weight. And believe an SIR is a better way to do it versus an equally effective flat plate.

Thanks, Bob
[/b]

Bob,
Thanks for your response. I can only imagine what everyone on the ITAC & CRB has gone through now with the posts that I've seen. I am finally glad to see someone take the bull by the horns and make a decision not only the SIR (not sure yet )but the weight plasement also (good call). Like others I'm alittle disappointed, like others, no results were posted & that the CRB did not see fit to implement the location of the SIR in the rules. It's time to move ahead and get ready to race. If this thing doesn't work you'll be hearing from me shortly .
Thanks
dj

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.[/b]

That is your right, while I disagree, your point is made.

It's an estimate. It's not based on hokey, over simplified, meaningless math like yours is.[/b]

So yours is an estimate and the ITAC's meaningless? I have never head anything so funny.

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. [/b]

Here is where your BMW-colored glasses get in your way. First off, we got the size and info FROM AN ENGINEER. Duh. We were told about it, we were sold on it, and the data was wrong. The SCCA made a mistake by not testing the conclusions that had been proven on other applications. I said we were wrong in assuming the data we got was right. Your harshness shows us how rational you are.

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. [/b]

STOP THE PRESSES! You nailed me!!!!!! I am caught.

It's statements like these that prove to me that you operate in a vacuum without seeking the facts. Put this on record so you can read it before you go to bed every night. When I started doing my analysis of the data, and what was 'true' and what wasn't about the technology, I expressed my immediate concern with the SIR. The more I thought about it, the ENTIRE impact on BMW drivers of all flavors, the rest of ITS and all of IT, I was (and am) in the firm AGAINST category. I can, however, see both sides of the pro's and cons and will explain them to anyone who asks IN SUPPORT of the CRB, so that people can make their own decision.

You mean the brakes that are smaller and have an inferior caliper design compared to the 944?[/b]

There is a forrest out there behind those trees you know. I don't think you will find any Porsche in ITS with larger front brakes than the E36. Regardless, it's about having something superior to the MAJORITY of the class that would give in an 'adder'. The 944 got a whack for the brakes it has - given it's weight and power output. Apperantly you missed it when I said the large brakes were marginalized by the weight at that level...so why bring them up?

Once again, you have either failed to address my point or have ignored it for convinience.[/b]

Haven't seen anyone get your point yet.

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.[/b]

Your being convinced the E36 is dead is based in pure nothingness. If the E36 is 'allowed' to put 185whp and 175ft/lbs to the ground at 2850, you think the car is dead? I think it's still one of the cars to have. So do MANY others.

Great final words in your post.

 

[e36its]

The only issue is that there is no precident for it and it may open up a flurry of requests for similar allowances.[/b]

That is a good point, Andy. I'd argue the CRB would indeed set a fresh precedent with a decision to allow both an unrestricted as well as a restricted weight for the E36, but no more than they did using an air restrictor on the E36.

I recognize that rules allowances can have unintended consequences so I'm somewhat leery of opening up this precedent -- but do you see it as opening a pandora's box if an alternate weight is spec'd in any situation where a restrictor is used for a PCA?

tom

 

[buldogge]

Hey Marshall... The problem with this is that if it remains a class with an IT type ruleset, then we are still screwed. There is very little weight left to take out of the E36 without composites, lexan, greater component removal...certainly not 200#!

DProd is probably the best bet (another can of worms there of course).

...OR the SCCA sees the writing on the wall with the way current "street tuning" is going and the ITR (or whatever) class allows cams, flywheels, composites, and big brakes!!!

the option that would be the simplest of all...

d/ none of the above..

reclassify the e36 into a new class above its at a lower weight. then bring in some other cars into the new class that are available.
do this NOW!!! end the lunacy of the performance compensation adjustment on the e36.
[/b]

 

[Jeremy Billiel]

I can't believe that this post is still alive

Look - I think everyone would agree that the CRB has not done a good job in communicating the SIR situation and it makes people unhappy.

Was I happy that the Integra GSR did not get a weight break in ITS? No, but guys this is racing FOR FUN. The difference between second and first doesn't mean a ride with Penske.

To attack Andy and Jake is a new low that is disgusting. They are *volunteering* to help SCCA, this is not a job. It’s shit like this that gives SCCA a bad name. Let's move on already!

*Rant off*

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually 3050 is almost exactly correct according to the process as you've documented it, even using the high end of the power/weight scale for ITS (12.9). That is a 200lb increase over the cars current weight - a very significant correction to the original misclassification. It will accomplish the goal of bringing the E36 closer to the rest of the field and will do so by treating it exactly like every other car in ITS. [/b]

Greg,

Where do you come up with 'the high end' of the P/W scale? That IS the number we use, no other. It's a target. You obvioulsy didn't read the whole thread. Multipliers are used subjectively based on KNOWN information. We know that The 944 varients are very maximized from the factory so we use 20% based on real crank numbers from big-buck builders. We know Honda's make more. We know rotories make more. We adjust and use actual date when it is available.

Using your 'hard and fast' method, the Gen 2 ITS RX-7 should weigh 2580. We have to bend when we need to bend. A 'formula' won't work.

I understand that you are applying a different multiplier for the E36 since it "responds better" to IT prep. In my opinion, that is invalid and subjective, especially added to the fact that you use the high end of the desired power/weight scale as well.[/b]

See above. Invalid? How so? When we know what power output is attainable, is it not fair to put that into the 'process'? We do it for many cars. Variable Valve Timing is a issue, DOHC, Rotory, etc.

How many other cars were given different multipliers than 1.25 (higher or lower)? How many other cars have been tested with Motec and all of the full prep bling that take a car from 95% prep to full bore, no excuses 100%? Who's to say that there aren't examples of RX7, Integra GSR, 240Z... that have shown similar yields, or will if prepared to the same degree?[/b]

Your whole issue is based in the assumption we don't make allowances for these things, we do.

In order for a classification process to be unquestionably valid it needs to utilize consistent multipliers, across the board. If testing has shown that the average IT build yields a 25% (or 22% or 27%...) increase over stock than that is the number that needs to be used for ALL classifications, that way all of the cars in a given class will have the same bogey power to weight ratio. The ability of certain cars, or individual builders, to legally meet or exceed that bogey number will then determine the good cars versus the bad.[/b]

I disagree 100%. If you class cars using a strict formula (or based on an average), you will end up with HUGE disparities in potential. You are wanting to create a have and have-not world. That is not the goal. The goal was to create a 'process' that would allow every car a chance to be competitive using a repeatable process that was the same for all. If you have a problem with it not being the same because we don't use the same 'multiplier', then call it what it is: Stock HP * % increase in IT prep * Target pw ratios + "adders".

If at 3050 the BMW 325 is still the best car in ITS when built to the absolute maximum, then so what? It will have been classified in the same manner, using the same math, as every other car in ITS. To me, that would be perfectly fair and the other cars in ITS would have ZERO grounds for complaint. And in my opinion, the BMW owners should have ZERO grounds for complaint or quitting either.[/b]

I agree with you 100% here except the premise for your 3050 is flawed IMHO - see above. The E46 323 at 3000lbs for example...if that car turnes out to the the King of ITS, SO BE IT!!!!! It has been through the process - the cream WILL rise to the top.

By changing the multiplier for certain cars you are opening yourselves up to crys of "foul".[/b]

You are right, and by not producing a hard and fast formula, we are in the same boat. Until you see the results (look at ITA), nobody can cry either way.

Let me ask you this: What weight would you classifiy the following cars at?

#1. RWD, double wishbones, 50-50 weight, excellent tranny ratios, 170 stock hp. 150 stock torque
#2. FWD, struts all around, 60-40 weight, crappy tranny ratios, 170 stock hp. 150 stock torque

If you answer the same weight, you are doing a disservice to the membership. I think the members would rather a small chance of a small mistake (that is unmeasuable in IT IMHO) with the tradeoff of a chance to podium given top prep and a top drive - in almost any car in the class.

AB

That is a good point, Andy. I'd argue the CRB would indeed set a fresh precedent with a decision to allow both an unrestricted as well as a restricted weight for the E36, but no more than they did using an air restrictor on the E36.

I recognize that rules allowances can have unintended consequences so I'm somewhat leery of opening up this precedent -- but do you see it as opening a pandora's box if an alternate weight is spec'd in any situation where a restrictor is used for a PCA?

tom [/b]

I personally don't see it as a problem. I would like to test the precedent actually.

 

[Greg Krom]

Let me ask you this: What weight would you classifiy the following cars at?

#1. RWD, double wishbones, 50-50 weight, excellent tranny ratios, 170 stock hp. 150 stock torque
#2. FWD, struts all around, 60-40 weight, crappy tranny ratios, 170 stock hp. 150 stock torque

[/b]

Perhaps I should clarify my position a bit...

I agree that you cannot use a "hard and fast" method to classify cars, though I should note I never used that term or anything like it. There are simply too many varieties of cars out there to not have some additions or subtractions to the base formula. Those adders should be consistent within a given class however - ie FWD should always be a 100 lb subtraction for ITS, 50 lb for ITA, 0 for ITB or ITC - actual numbers for example only!!!

That said however, I believe that all cars should start out with the same basic formula, then you add/subtract for differences in vehicle architecture. A single percentage for HP increase in IT trim should be used. If Car A and Car B both have the same stock HP, torque, drive configuration, suspension setup, etc then they should weigh exactly the same. If Car A happens to get 1 or 2% better HP increase than the bogey, while Car B gets exactly the bogey then so be it. Car A will be a (slightly) better car.

Using "real" dyno data is dangerous, IMHO. Unless a single control dyno is used and the engines are confirmed to be maxed, legal and properly tuned, I don't believe that it is proof one car responds better to IT mods than another.

To Andy's examples...

Assuming these cars are in ITS, the base formula would be 170*1.25*12.9, which equals 2741.25. If both cars were RWD, strut suspension, etc, the ITS weight should be 2750.

For purposes of discussion lets use some simple weight add/subtracts:
Double wishbone: +50 lbs per axle
50-50 weight dist: +50 lbs
FWD: -100 lbs

Trans ratios are tough to quantify. I think in ITS, most of the cars should have good to excellent ratios, they're mostly performance based vehicles after all. I think I would consider this a wash in ITS, unless a given car has economy based gears, then I would make it a subtractor of 25-50 lbs? An older 4-speed ITS car should be given a break as well. Personally I think gearboxes play a larger role in the classifications in the lower classes where you are likely to see some REALLY bad ratios.

Car #1 should be 2900 lbs.

Car #2 should be 2650 lbs.

Based on the specs of each vehicle as listed, I think that those are good weights. We can quibble on the values of the individual add/subtracts but we are left with a FWD, 60-40, strut car that is 250 lbs lighter than a identical HP, torque RWD, 50-50, double wishbone car. That seems about right to me, give a take a few lbs one way or the other.

 

[lateapex911]

......, 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. .......................................... 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.
[/b]

This has, to be honest, got to be one of the most slanderous posts yet, and considering the thread, that is indeed saying something.

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. [/b]

You have NO idea...NONE..zero, zilch, NADA what you are saying. You have NO idea how Andy has been the single most involved participant on the ITAC in demanding numbers, in moving implementation dates and so on. I can say with 100% certainty, that this solution is NOT what he wanted and NOBODY will deny that...nobody on the ITAC, or the CRB. You have no concept of how hard he has fought to be fair to all the E36 guys.

Statements like that are COMPLETELY unacceptable, and are COMPLETELY without grounds. You have even been told, by the Vice Chair of the CRB, that Andy has acted properly, and that the design of the system, of course, is such to eliminate the possibility that one person could act in an self serving manner.

Further, you have NO proof that the E36 is "dead" as you put it. Can you predict the future???? Have you seen what Chets car, for instance, can do with a 29mm SIR??? NO, of course you haven't.

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.[/b]

And this statement is truely disgusting and without a shred of integrity. Have you read the millions of words posted on the workings of the ITAC and the CRB...have you noticed that the 944s got a recent weight BREAK!?!?? You either don't care, and are just here to try to rattle the cages of a volunteer staff, and one that, I might add, has recieved numerous acolades for their 'progressive thinking' and 'unity of direction'. Or you are just ignoring the truth. What an absurd statement that is. If you really believe that this is the case, you are a delusional little guy hiding under tin foil....very sad.

Statements like those are just plain unacceptable, and are character attacks.
I am sorry to the rest of the debaters of this thread, but my integrity can not stand by and allow those to go unanswered.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Perhaps I should clarify my position a bit...

I agree that you cannot use a "hard and fast" method to classify cars, though I should note I never used that term or anything like it. There are simply too many varieties of cars out there to not have some additions or subtractions to the base formula. Those adders should be consistent within a given class however - ie FWD should always be a 100 lb subtraction for ITS, 50 lb for ITA, 0 for ITB or ITC - actual numbers for example only!!!

That said however, I believe that all cars should start out with the same basic formula, then you add/subtract for differences in vehicle architecture. A single percentage for HP increase in IT trim should be used. If Car A and Car B both have the same stock HP, torque, drive configuration, suspension setup, etc then they should weigh exactly the same. If Car A happens to get 1 or 2% better HP increase than the bogey, while Car B gets exactly the bogey then so be it. Car A will be a (slightly) better car.

Using "real" dyno data is dangerous, IMHO. Unless a single control dyno is used and the engines are confirmed to be maxed, legal and properly tuned, I don't believe that it is proof one car responds better to IT mods than another.

To Andy's examples...

Assuming these cars are in ITS, the base formula would be 170*1.25*12.9, which equals 2741.25. If both cars were RWD, strut suspension, etc, the ITS weight should be 2750.

For purposes of discussion lets use some simple weight add/subtracts:
Double wishbone: +50 lbs per axle
50-50 weight dist: +50 lbs
FWD: -100 lbs

Trans ratios are tough to quantify. I think in ITS, most of the cars should have good to excellent ratios, they're mostly performance based vehicles after all. I think I would consider this a wash in ITS, unless a given car has economy based gears, then I would make it a subtractor of 25-50 lbs? An older 4-speed ITS car should be given a break as well. Personally I think gearboxes play a larger role in the classifications in the lower classes where you are likely to see some REALLY bad ratios.

Car #1 should be 2900 lbs.

Car #2 should be 2650 lbs.

Based on the specs of each vehicle as listed, I think that those are good weights. We can quibble on the values of the individual add/subtracts but we are left with a FWD, 60-40, strut car that is 250 lbs lighter than a identical HP, torque RWD, 50-50, double wishbone car. That seems about right to me, give a take a few lbs one way or the other.
[/b]

Greg, how do you handle 4 valve and Vtec twin cam stuff? I don't see that in your math. Also these are all production based cars. Most have crappy 2nd to 3rd gear splits the BMW does not. The 240z has basicly 2 usable gears at any given track. How do you deal with that?

 

[Eagle7]

...
If this is the way the CRB wants to go, I would support a spec intake set-up 100% sold through SCCA Enterprises.
...
AB
[/b]

Yikes! I hope you're just yanking our chain, Andy. Now we want the SCCA to be building and selling spec parts that they designed for a single marque? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

CRB - please give them their 300 lbs and be done with it.

 

[Bill Miller]

NO Bill as normal you just want to rant....you have seen no tests that are actually done on a car in a proper state of tune. So you have no idea what the effect will be. Now I will say that I was wrong only because the IT rules don't allow the install far enough away from the MAF but I will bet money that with in a year that problem will be solved and the 29MM will be too big.
[/b]

Joe,

Bob Dowie said that the 29mm SIR pulls ~20hp off the top of the E36. Andy (and others I believe) have said that the SIR impacts all motors, not just ones making more than the target hp. We have a dyno plot of a motor in less than an optimum state of tune, that started out below the SIR target hp number, that had ~20 hp chopped off w/ the SIR. To me, that's a pretty good indication that the motor isn't "blind" to the SIR below the target hp. And frankly, that was one of my biggest beefs w/ the SIR to begin with. I thought it was total BS to implement something that would let guys get to the hp limit w/o maxed-out efforts.

SIRs are fine for full-tilt pro efforts on purpose-built race engines, as a power limiting device. They don't belong on mildly tuned passenger car motors.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

Bob Dowie said that the 29mm SIR pulls ~20hp off the top of the E36. Andy (and others I believe) have said that the SIR impacts all motors, not just ones making more than the target hp. We have a dyno plot of a motor in less than an optimum state of tune, that started out below the SIR target hp number, that had ~20 hp chopped off w/ the SIR. To me, that's a pretty good indication that the motor isn't "blind" to the SIR below the target hp. And frankly, that was one of my biggest beefs w/ the SIR to begin with. I thought it was total BS to implement something that would let guys get to the hp limit w/o maxed-out efforts.

SIRs are fine for full-tilt pro efforts on purpose-built race engines, as a power limiting device. They don't belong on mildly tuned passenger car motors.[/b]

Bill qualify this as your opinion.Fact is SIR's fit better in a no mod class like IT because you are not going to engineer around them period. I still feel the 29 is to big so your right the e36 is getting a gift but BFD it will be better now for other marques than it has been in years. As I said I was wrong on a poor running engine being blind to it but I have not seen any proof yet that a proper running engine has a major loss in performance. Remember HP is not what I care about under the curve. I think the torque on the bimmer is the number that will keep it up front and still the car to have..

 

[Greg Krom]

Greg, how do you handle 4 valve and Vtec twin cam stuff? I don't see that in your math. Also these are all production based cars. Most have crappy 2nd to 3rd gear splits the BMW does not. The 240z has basicly 2 usable gears at any given track. How do you deal with that?
[/b]

I honestly don't know what the best way to address VTEC and the like. Does it even need to be addressed? Often times those systems come with their own set of drawbacks that offset much of the gains - ie they rev forever but they have no bottom end at all. Driveability/Raceability usually suffers. By looking at hp and torque aren't you already accounting for that?

If a car has an *exceptionally* good set of gears, then maybe it's due for a small adder. Though I think if it were up to me, I'd be inclined to just leave it alone and chalk that up as one advantage in the BMW's court. Is the gearing really that much better? I honestly don't know - I'm asking. If the 240 had the BMW's gearing would the results from the last few years have been reversed? I suspect not. The gearing is a factor in the BMW's success, but probably a small one relative to it's other advantages - most notably the weight that is a good 200 pounds too low.

 

[mlytle]

Hey Marshall... The problem with this is that if it remains a class with an IT type ruleset, then we are still screwed. There is very little weight left to take out of the E36 without composites, lexan, greater component removal...certainly not 200#!

DProd is probably the best bet (another can of worms there of course).

...OR the SCCA sees the writing on the wall with the way current "street tuning" is going and the ITR (or whatever) class allows cams, flywheels, composites, and big brakes!!!
[/b]

i think we could easily make it down to 2750 in it trim. my car for example. i run min weight(2850) with me (195lb), 50lbs of ballast and a half tank of gas. there are still some things i could remove from the car too.

unrestricted and 100lbs lighter? bring it on!

or on your last point...maybe scca could just adopt the bmwcca prepared rules for the itx class...cams, wings, brakes, etc!

 

[Joe Harlan]

I honestly don't know what the best way to address VTEC and the like. Does it even need to be addressed? Often times those systems come with their own set of drawbacks that offset much of the gains - ie they rev forever but they have no bottom end at all. Driveability/Raceability usually suffers. By looking at hp and torque aren't you already accounting for that?

If a car has an *exceptionally* good set of gears, then maybe it's due for a small adder. Though I think if it were up to me, I'd be inclined to just leave it alone and chalk that up as one advantage in the BMW's court. Is the gearing really that much better? I honestly don't know - I'm asking. If the 240 had the BMW's gearing would the results from the last few years have been reversed? I suspect not. The gearing is a factor in the BMW's success, but probably a small one relative to it's other advantages - most notably the weight that is a good 200 pounds too low.
[/b]

Well Greg that's why the guy's that are doing the job are doing it. They understand that the things they are using for +'s and -'s are needed to get these cars closer than we ever have in the past. I have worked with enigines all of my life and I can tell you I have never seen a case that VTEC was not a performance gain in this type of application. FI is a gain over carbs, Brakes are better than they ever have been...and Gear ratio's will play a big part in any cars success. So I guess I agree with your math far more than I disagree with the ITAC's math.

 

[Eagle7]

CRB - please give them their 300 lbs and be done with it.
[/b]

I just sent this letter to the CRB.

Dear Sirs,



I have watched with great interest the consideration of the classification of the ITS BMW E36. I was initially quite open to the idea of using SIRs to bring the BMW into parity with the class target. However the information we got from the results of the testing, and the subsequent resizing of the SIR have convinced me that this was a serious error. The IT community (as evidenced by the forums on ImprovedTouring.com) is in the midst of a “war” trying to deal with this result. Slanderous accusations aimed at ITAC members are commonplace. I don’t expect this to settle out for quite some time, and even then the result is open to serious question. The SIR may prove to be a “killer” of the BMW’s competitiveness. Or it may prove to be ineffective in sufficiently reducing the performance of a well-engineered implementation. In my mind it’s likely that it will further separate the “haves” from the “have nots”, rather than bring them closer together.



I have concluded that the SIR is not well suited for Improved Touring racing, and would ask that you rescind its specification for the BMW, and apply the “process” weight to that car in its place.



Thank you for your consideration,

Marty Doane

West Michigan Region

# 321263

Owner/Driver ITS RX-7

 

[jimmy p]

Greg, how do you handle 4 valve and Vtec twin cam stuff? I don't see that in your math. Also these are all production based cars. Most have crappy 2nd to 3rd gear splits the BMW does not. The 240z has basicly 2 usable gears at any given track. How do you deal with that?
[/b]

You dont, you start with a better car.
Why (continue to) dumb the BMW down to meet the bottom cars, just accept the fact that some companies build better "base" cars than others.

Greg has what "should" be going down right on.
Any descrepancies in the "formula" for cars opens the can of snakes going on now.

Some cars are just make better race cars than others. Time SCCA faced up to that.
Just my .02 (going back to lurking)
jimmy p.

 

[e36its]

Greg, how do you handle 4 valve and Vtec twin cam stuff? I don't see that in your math. Also these are all production based cars. Most have crappy 2nd to 3rd gear splits the BMW does not. The 240z has basicly 2 usable gears at any given track. How do you deal with that?[/b]

Interesting question, Joe. Seems like the bigger question is what information is relevant as an input to a performance balancing equation and what information is just a characteristic of the car chosen.

tom