April SIR ruling

[Eagle7]

I've heard of this guy thats getting 195 rwhp in his gen II RX7 and I am sure its possible to get 200, anything is possible if you throw enough cash at it....... [/b]

What the heck are you guys smoking? So you're sure it's possible to get 200 HP from an IT trim RX-7. I can tell you that most of the RX-7's in my neck of the woods are in the 160's and many are lower than that (unfortunately including mine). Probably the same prep level as your 195 HP bimmers.

If I go out and spend, say 100-200 grand on a RX 7 engine and get 10 more hp than any other documented RX7 will the CRB use that as the RX7's "gold standard". [/b]

I would think so, if it's documented to be legal.

You guys crack me up.[/b]

Evidently you have no idea how ridiculous that sounds.

Circle the wagons at ALL costs.......but avoid answering Fred's reasonable questions about the RX-7 at ALL costs, too. [/b]

Fred's comments were anything but reasonable.

LOL at the incredible irony. And ya wonder why the perception in the BMW community of bias, favoritism, and conflicts of interest haven't gone away despite the "all my friends say I am honest so I must be" testimonials? [/b]

I'm pretty sure you don't represent the BMW community.

Not that it matters, but if the class bogey is about 15 lbs/HP, how could 10 lbs be worth 1 HP? Did I miss something in 5th grade?

 

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, here is some unsolicited advice regarding the above statements: please do not take up either phychology or mind-reading as a paying profession, as you would starve.

I am sorry to say that you could not be more wrong on either account. I am by no means a pro driver, although I am flattered by the accusation. I do compete in some pro races, but there is no way I even remotely have the talent to make a living racing. So I am really an amateur with pro licenses (God knows why they were ever granted...LOL). As such, the only way to hone & improve is to race in amateur/club series. So I very much have things at stake, and Club racing very much has a competitor (customer in your parlance) to lose in my moving on. And, I am sad to say, I will be only one among a large number of BMW folks leaving ITS.

And still, no one dares answer Fred's questions about the RX-7's. Very telling...

While you find it necessary once again to make issue with the irrelevant--my parodic user name--you are also way off base WRT your psychoanalysis of me. I do not like fighting, Joe. It is exhausting. But, even more, I do not like laying down while right is ignored and wrong is triumphed.
And finally, regarding your last sentence, above: you are batting .000 so far, Joe. I have great respect for the opinions of those who behave with integrity and honor, whether they dovetail with my own or not.

And I will leave it at that. Have a great evening!
[/b]

Yeah, I have seen you out there leading the charge when this car was misclassed to start with and setting records all over the country. Please go back and read Bob Dowies post and lets be done with this thread.

 

[Harry Balszac]

Yeah, I have seen you out there leading the charge when this car was misclassed to start with and setting records all over the country. Please go back and read Bob Dowies post and lets be done with this thread.
[/b]

Way to keep it real using the language of a bitter backmarker, Joe.

As an aside, I would have no problem wit the E36 being reclassed. It may be the best long-term solution of all.

Eagle, I never claimed to represent anyone but myself. But I sure can hear the BMW community loud & clear. I am pretty sure you cannot, however. The approx. 10 lbs weight reduction = 1 more HP was shared with me by several very experienced racers and race engineers. It is not absolute, but generally, in production-based cars, it is pretty doggone close. In tube-frame cars and spec cars, it would not work at all, obviously.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

You guys crack me up.

Circle the wagons at ALL costs.......but avoid answering Fred's reasonable questions about the RX-7 at ALL costs, too. LOL at the incredible irony. And ya wonder why the perception in the BMW community of bias, favoritism, and conflicts of interest haven't gone away despite the "all my friends say I am honest so I must be" testimonials? [/b]

Come on Harry! Seriously, lets move forward. The Vice-Chair of the CRB came on here and said there were no issues. As far as Fred's comment, there is no data to support that power level. If I told you I 'heard' of a 245whp E36 in ITS, does that mean anything to you? I hope no. (Please don't anyone ever quote that 245whp ITS cars are being quoted by the ITAC) It's not very telling, it's not worth the response by most.

Andy, FYI, your link showed 3 examples. The "average" was in different places in each. Maybe you meant a different example, because it sure didn't show what you think it showed.[/b]

Yup, and the 'largest are under the bell curve' in each example IS THE AVERAGE. It's what a BC is all about.

Nevertheless, I will answer your question honestly, as I have all the other questions about ME. It was my intent to race a very well prepared ITS-legal car in 2006, prior to this SIR circus. Now, it is extremely likely that I will NOT race in it with SCCA at all, but only with BMW Club and NASA. [/b]

And you know what? This is your right and in some ways I don't blame you. All anyone asks is that you try and look objectively at the numbers (if you are thinking weight at the time) and objectively at what the SIR takes off of a motor - and apply that to a top - not just 'excellent' example (if you are thinking SIR's at the time)

 

[Joe Harlan]

Way to keep it real using the language of a bitter backmarker, Joe.

As an aside, I would have no problem wit the E36 being reclassed. It may be the best long-term solution of all.

Eagle, I never claimed to represent anyone but myself. But I sure can hear the BMW community loud & clear. I am pretty sure you cannot, however. The approx. 10 lbs weight reduction = 1 more HP was shared with me by several very experienced racers and race engineers. It is not absolute, but generally, in production-based cars, it is pretty doggone close. In tube-frame cars and spec cars, it would not work at all, obviously.
[/b]

Dave, way to go. you have now proved yourself an asshole. Not bitter in anyway and I promise I am far from a backmarker in anything I drive. Your race engineers maybe very experienced but they are wrong in this case.
There were a ton of cars adjusted under the existing formula and this is the only one anyone is bitching about, Tells me that the adjustment is clearly the right one.

Have a nice weekend.

 

[Harry Balszac]

Andy, with all due respect to Bob (who has been very nice), I could not care less what the Vice Chairman of Dell Computers says, much less the Vice Chairman of the CRB. Titles do not impress me. The vice-chair of CRB said there are no issues? Wow, I guess i should jump up & down with the same glee as when we were told that the 27mm SIR would operate perfectly without testing. And with the same glee as when we were also told that the SIR would not reduce power for any non-uber-bling E36 motor making absolute max power.

See where I am going with this? I have no beef with Bob personally. But, frankly, CRB's and ITAC's credibility is approximately zero right now.

You said "As far as Fred's comment, there is no data to support that power level." Maybe so, Andy. There is also no data to support your "gold standard" of 210 RWHP for an E36 motor, either.

Joe, kinda sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, eh? If you are gonna make a personal barb--despite the Admins' warning--do not expect it to remain unanswered. While I will not name the engineers who shared with me that benchmark--and I respect your opinion that you think they are wrong--two of the drivers who also echoed it WRT production-based cars are Brian Redman and Darren Law. I am sure they are wrong, too, and you are right. LOL.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Andy, with all due respect to Bob (who has been very nice), I could not care less what the Vice Chairman of Dell Computers says, much less the Vice Chairman of the CRB. Titles do not impress me. The vice-chair of CRB said there are no issues? Wow, I guess i should jump up & down with the same glee as when we were told that the 27mm SIR would operate perfectly without testing. And with the same glee as when we were also told that the SIR would not reduce power for any non-uber-bling E36 motor making absolute max power.

See where I am going with this? I have no beef with Bob personally. But, frankly, CRB's and ITAC's credibility is approximately zero right now.

You said "As far as Fred's comment, there is no data to support that power level." Maybe so, Andy. There is also no data to support your "gold standard" of 210 RWHP for an E36 motor, either.

Joe, kinda sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, eh? If you are gonna make a personal barb--despite the Admins' warning--do not expect it to remain unanswered. While I will not name the engineers who shared with me that benchmark--and I respect your opinion that you think they are wrong--two of the drivers who also echoed it WRT production-based cars are Brian Redman and Darren Law. I am sure they are wrong, too, and you are right. LOL.
[/b]

So if we use your math the car makes 1 HP for every 10lbs of weight. Then we did not adjust it enough cause that would put the car at 285HP would it not? You can drop all the names you like but if they are wrong they are wrong. There is no generic math to determine how much HP is gained for a given amount of weight loss. Each application is different. But you just keep talking because you are quickly proving how little you actually know. So far all I have heard from you is "somebody told me"

Again John Norris started a thread on how to mount this thing and nobody has offered any help. I will bet 100 bucks once he figures it out John will be all over the front of the pack from day one.

 

[Bill Miller]

If you are gonna make a personal barb--despite the Admins' warning--[/b]

But it's ok for you to do it? Yeah, that's it. You've got no credibility Hairy. BTW, can't wait for your response to the dyno sheet of that 210 whp E36. Anybody want to start a pool?

Guys This is back on about page 8....WTH ARE YOU STILL FIGHTING ABOUT IT. It ain't gonna change you can offer up all kinds of counter solutions that have very little meaning but the rules change is done. Get over it.

[/b]

And this is what, the THIRD time it's "been done"? Joe, I'm really surprised that you'd just lay down for something if it's not the right thing to do for the car or the class. Rules have been put in before that have been removed or revised. Just because it makes it in doesn't mean "it's done".

And, in defense of 'Sack (betcha never thought you'd see that here! ), the 10#/hp has nothing at all to do w/ how much power an engine makes. It's about how much hp an additional amount of weight will trim off. Applies to pretty much any car, in any class. I don't know how accurate the number is, but I've heard it as well. Could be because it's such a nice, round number. But I suspect that it's probably pretty close. I can tell you where you won't see it, and that's on a dyno.

 

[Harry Balszac]

So if we use your math the car makes 1 HP for every 10lbs of weight. Then we did not adjust it enough cause that would put the car at 285HP would it not? You can drop all the names you like but if they are wrong they are wrong. There is no generic math to determine how much HP is gained for a given amount of weight loss. Each application is different. But you just keep talking because you are quickly proving how little you actually know. So far all I have heard from you is "somebody told me"

Again John Norris started a thread on how to mount this thing and nobody has offered any help. I will bet 100 bucks once he figures it out John will be all over the front of the pack from day one.
[/b]

Joe, I would ask that you work on your reading/listening skills. That is NOT what I said.

What I said is that a common benchmark is that every 10 pounds of weight removed from a production sedan-based car, it is the equivalent to adding 1 RWHP. And the opposite is true: for every approximately 10 pounds added, approximately 1 RWHP is lost.

Also, I am not "dropping names". I am passing on the wisdom of folks who have achieved a whole lot more in this sport than either you or I ever will. I take wisdom from folks like that--especially when at random the tidbits align nearly perfectly--very seriously. Apparently, however, you have no regard for any opinion that does not agree with your own, no matter its source (ironically, a charge you leveled against me). If you'd like to remain in denial, please be my guest. I am sure Joe Harlan knows a lot more than anyone...LOL.

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 or has turned out to be true...and it has to be implemented in a month with NO product availbility.

Pure genius. Kudos to CRB and ITAC for a stellar job. LMAO...

Bill, two things. First, I made no barb at Joe that precipitated him reminding me that I am a mediocre driver. So, once again, you are off base....and he calls ME the "asshole"? Priceless. Second, if we have dyno info on an actual current ITS e36 competitor that makes 210 RWHP, on the same dyno as the others used for this SIR testing, I will gladly admit I was wrong when I said there was no evidence of one.

 

[Fastfred92]

Lets end this thing! Start a letter to the CRB effort to reconsider the direction of IT and SIR's,,,, either do away with them in IT or apply them to all cars. Add weight to the BMW but do it in steps to get it right. Mask the car owners name but make public all dyno sheets the ad hoc has, e36, RX, 240, GSR, 944 whatever else. Start a fricking collection and when you get atleast 20 of each make we could start to make educated guesses as to what car make what hp.... I could care less what AB or Geo or whoever drives, works on etc. etc. but lets make this whole process more transparent, we are afterall in the same club and each of us should has as much of a voice as the next.

 

[Joe Harlan]

But it's ok for you to do it? Yeah, that's it. You've got no credibility Hairy. BTW, can't wait for your response to the dyno sheet of that 210 whp E36. Anybody want to start a pool?
And this is what, the THIRD time it's "been done"? Joe, I'm really surprised that you'd just lay down for something if it's not the right thing to do for the car or the class. Rules have been put in before that have been removed or revised. Just because it makes it in doesn't mean "it's done".

[/b]

Bill, I am not laying down for anything. We disagree on this and nothing more. I believe in the end this technology will be good for the class and I also believe it will allow more cars to be classed and raced. And they won't just be BMW's.
The power to weight formula spouted out here is nothing more than an estimate and I find it funny that we would give it credibility and then say the system being used is BS. As far as the rule being done Bill. It is done dude so quit giving people false hope that it's gonna change. There is a date set and people are installing these things and going racing. If we loose a couple of guys that we never had and never were likely to have then I am OK with that.
You can say that SIR's aren't good for IT till your blue in the face but fact is they are here and here to stay. It won't belong before you see them every where. The number of classes we have is stupid and there is no reason to add more.

Mr. Scott, I respect both of the people you spoke of but you have no idea what my background is so you have no clue what I know. You guys have fun.

 

[Bill Miller]

Simply amazing Hairy, you can call me a 'azzhole', but then get your nose all out of joint because someone does the same to you. Too frickin funny!!! And what does it matter if it's a current ITS competitor or not? If there's dyno data that show a 210 whp ITS E36, what the hell difference does it make if it's still being run or not? I do agree though, the data should be from the same brand dyno to be an apples to apples comparrison.

Joe,

You said the rule was here to stay when it was a 27mm SIR. Like I said, you may be willing to accept this, but there are several others, including myself, that aren't, and will work towards getting these things tossed from IT.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Simply amazing Hairy, you can call me a 'azzhole', but then get your nose all out of joint because someone does the same to you. Too frickin funny!!! And what does it matter if it's a current ITS competitor or not? If there's dyno data that show a 210 whp ITS E36, what the hell difference does it make if it's still being run or not? I do agree though, the data should be from the same brand dyno to be an apples to apples comparrison.

Joe,

You said the rule was here to stay when it was a 27mm SIR. Like I said, you may be willing to accept this, but there are several others, including myself, that aren't, and will work towards getting these things tossed from IT.
[/b]

Bill, you can work at it all you want. I am cofortable saying it's here to stay and I am spending my extra time getting to know how to make it work and how it will balance classes.

As far as having to run on the same Dyno goes it would be nice but not needed. Dyno's are a tool and if you read all the data you get from a dyno peak HP i just one item. There is far more information that can be gained by reading and understanding all the other information you get. I really don't care who's dyno it is I care more about who is operating it.

 

[Bill Miller]

Bill, you can work at it all you want. I am cofortable saying it's here to stay and I am spending my extra time getting to know how to make it work and how it will balance classes.

As far as having to run on the same Dyno goes it would be nice but not needed. Dyno's are a tool and if you read all the data you get from a dyno peak HP i just one item. There is far more information that can be gained by reading and understanding all the other information you get. I really don't care who's dyno it is I care more about who is operating it.
[/b]

Then we will agree to disagree. I do agree w/ you about the dyno operator. As an aside, just how well have SIRs worked in GT-L?

 

[dj10]

It is certaintly a shame to see so many people being polarized by this "adjustment" but I can see why it would. I'm certain that no one in their right mind would like to spend $1,000 to $ 2,000 to make their cars go slower. Am I right? We are taking a giant leap of faith that this will work. We already heard form the CRB if it doesn't work they will correct it, but by whose's expense? I think I'm doing this more for the experience and information than I'm being patriotic to the SCCA. I really don't know what is going to happen since I can't afford a top of the line engine builder to build my engine. I plan to be able to race NASA if this SIR kills my chances of being competive in SCCA. This is all I can do. I do believe that the SCCA will lose a lot of, or most of it's BMW membership, which is sad. When the SCCA made the Struts & Shocks with resevoirs illegal, I bet they ticked some people that spent big bucks for them off, so it won't be the 1st time they alienated some people. I guess I be stubborn and see this thing through even though my gut feeling is telling me something different. I think all the BMW racers have to make a decision to boycott and let those rice burners walk away with everything, or not. I won't be posting here any more since there isn't anything new being typed here, Time to move beyond this.
Everyone kiss and make up!

 

[Harry Balszac]

Simply amazing Hairy, you can call me a 'azzhole', but then get your nose all out of joint because someone does the same to you. Too frickin funny!!! And what does it matter if it's a current ITS competitor or not? If there's dyno data that show a 210 whp ITS E36, what the hell difference does it make if it's still being run or not? I do agree though, the data should be from the same brand dyno to be an apples to apples comparrison.

Joe,

You said the rule was here to stay when it was a 27mm SIR. Like I said, you may be willing to accept this, but there are several others, including myself, that aren't, and will work towards getting these things tossed from IT.
[/b]

Bill, you are correct. I should not have suggested you were behaving like an azzhole. I retract it and apologize for it. I should not have lowered myself to behave the way folks I criticize behave; yet I did, and I am sorry, Bill.

I do sincerely believe we need to look at ITS E36's that are actually competing to find the peak RWHP. I believe this is one of the few ways we can bring credibility back to this sorry process. You may disagree, and that is fine. But I believe in looking at competitors, not theories. As an example, there are probably a number of retired World Challenge 325i's that are in some way better than those competing today. Does that mean they should be the basis for curretn WC rules? I say no.

Your final point ot Joe is spot-on, hence my earlier comment about some folks circling the wagons at all costs, and my other point about the CRB and ITAC's credibility being approximately zero these days.

Joe, you are right--I do not know your capabilities or talents, nor you mine. The difference between us is this: I do not underestimate you, but you underestimate me. While I really don't care, you should know that this is not the sign of a professional. Professionals do not underestimate their opponents or fellow competitors.

 

[e36its]

When the SCCA made the Struts & Shocks with resevoirs illegal, I bet they ticked some people that spent big bucks for the off[/b]

This got me thinking about some notable rule changes in the past like the remote reservoir thing, the threaded-body coilover rule, SBs. The effect of these changes was to change the definition of max prep, right? This sort of change has become commonplace, or at least we've gotten used to them. What I think is new is a rule that changes the definition of minimum-prep for a subset of the class.

One can be IT legal with basic safety equipment only, right? Add in cage, harnesses, window net, bolt in fire extinguisher, and kill switch and you're off to the races (literally!). You can run stock exhaust and the stock airbox and the full interior if you want. Competitive? Probably not -- but it's possible UNLESS you're an E36. Then you need to ditch the stock airbox, intake piping, and (it seems) custom programming in addition to buying a $350 SIR.

It might be that we make rules for max prep and thus the minimum prep isn't a concept that matters. It might be the rule of the land and I should just move on (hi, Joe!). But I can't help but think it's a fundamental change in the class beyond some squabble between the BMW and non-BMW folk.

tom

 

[lateapex911]

Dave, IMO and from the engine builders I know their well built engines will put out 190 -195 rwhp on a Mustang Dyno, I believe that would be the equivalent of 205-210 rwhp on a Dyno Jet without Motec.

dj
[/b]

OK, anybody care to reveal the difference between a Mustang and a dynojet?

Or what does 192.5 = on a Dyno jet?

(And yes, i know it depends on WHAT dynojet, and that there are differences, and many factors can skew the exact number. But generally....is a Mustang 10% weaker or 15% stronger or ????)

........ 190-195 on a mustang ain't the same as 190-195 on a dynojet.
[/b]

 

[lateapex911]

Gold standard? LOL.

........

Your "gold standard" is subjective nonsense, with all due respect, and has NEVER been proven. EVER.

--just saying that perception is reality.
[/b]

Just a point of order. Running around with a blindfold on and saying "I can't see the proof" doesn't mean that the proof doesn't exist, it merely means that you can't see it.
And claiming that it can't exist, or we would have provided it is a statement with an incorrect conclusion.

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. If your car were to be adjusted, and the adjustment was based on the power it made, and if you knew you were a top of the class car, would you send in your numbers voluntarily? Most would not, unless the numbers were in conflict to the numbers that were being discussed, and adjustments based on those discussed numbers would hurt your competitve position unduly.

Ask Kirk Knestis about motivation and policy.....


The second point is, how is it fair to the rest of IT to class one car based on the fat part of the "bell curve" while every other car is classed based on a top prep condition???

The corallary is that if that were to happen then every car would be readjusted proportionaly.

You have stated earlier that the car deserves no special treatment. You have also stated that 195 is the fat part of the bell curve. If that's the case, top prep is clearly above that, and the car should, if it indeed doesn't deserve special treatment as you say, be classed appropriately.

 

[lateapex911]

.......at the ARRC we could NOT KEEP UP WITH THE HUFFMASTER RX 7 and he was legal as all the top finishers.
......
also to the itac guys i know youre trying hard and you don't deserve what happening and the abuse thrown at you . stay strong and keep up your spirit, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
i cannot say whether the SIR is good or not because we don't have one to test with so i won't say if the size is correct or not .
someone was saying that variable timing and 4 valve head makes the bmw an overdog and needs a different formula the i guess the same formula should be used on the honda vtec engine??????what about the rx7 variable intake timing and intake runner lenghts??????
[/b]

be careful Steve.

We have to use facts that we know are facts....and the fact that all ARRC top cars are legal is just not known.

Points of interest;
The ITS rotaries are, by the tech official at the ARRCs admittance, difficult to check. As such, they do not check for porting. (ITA is different. they use a "Lolipop" for the exhaust, and a finger for the intake) Nor do they check for things like using idle air adjuter valves to admit air at full throttle downstream of the throttle plates, which is possible with advanced engine management systems.

ITS piston engines are not automatically torn down. If manpower exists, they will pull the heads and check for things like valve size, and other related measurements. But it is possible to have a lot of things done to the bottom end and fly through tech, evn after an ARRC teardown. And some years a car could have even more.

While the ARRC teardown is one of the better ones out there, if not the best, it needs to be remembered that we can't assume the cars are, or are not, totally legal.