April SIR ruling

[e36its]

I also love the people that whine because the SIR effects everybody's motors, and doens't just chop power off the top. Boo frickin' hoo, you can't have a winning car w/ a j/y motor. Welcome to the rest of IT's world.[/b]

That might be directed at me, dunno... if so, I appreciate you raising the discource by using pejorative terms like "whine". Helpful.

I do see your point. A car should not motor away and win when built to less than the full extent of the rules. However, I'm not sure you can say that the E36 folk are now in the rest of IT's world. Nobody else is mandated to use a performance-decreasing device whose implementation and impacts are not well understood. E36 owners are out by ourselves in uncharted waters here, aren't we?

tom

 

[dj10]

Therefore, I won't respond to any of the less than reasonble comments and claims here.

In terms of the placement of the SIR that I observed at the tests I was present for, I can say this:
When the SIR was placed directly in front of the HFM (?) AFM (?) the car ran poorly and was clearly affected by the pressure variations the SIR presented, even low in the rev range. So we moved the meter to a location, as I explained many posts up, upstream of the SIR.

The wire reached easily, we didn't see the same issues, and the A/F ratio was right in the range it should be, and matched the baseline runs.

Now, is it possible to mount the SIR further upsteam of the meter and acheive good results? I don't know. I understand that Dave Finch (from what has been repeated here) states that that is the way he tested, but I am unaware of any tests he conducted.
[/b]

Jake, we'll be talking to Dave shortly. If we find out any new info I'll post it. I'll also be testing my car on track and dyno so I'll have info from the tests. I have a new engine and I'll break it in before I get on the dyno.
I would like to know Jake if you tried the SIR in differnet positions upstream of the AFM? I would think the best place if any would be just after the air filter if it would work at all. But I've been know to be wrong before.

 

[DoubleD]

Not too much to ask, I would be asking the same thing but let's just wait until the CRB releases a statement. It's their baby, not mine or the ITAC's.
[/b]

You promoted it. You backed it. You promised it would work and said "trust me".

You abstained from the final ITAC recommendation vote, as I understand it. That's mighty christian of you. (BTW, why is it that you abstained? Is it because you were concerned about the perception of bias or conflict of interest?)

ITAC, at your urging, recommended the SIR to CRB. It is, to be as polite as possible, disingenuous to now say ITAC was not involved.

It does NOT work as advertised. You were wrong. You, despite having promised to do so on this site, have not stood up and taken responsibility. You have blamed CRB and now Finch instead.

Finch is a salesman. I don't blame a fisherman for fishing. You bought his pitch hook, line, and sinker. It is your failure to research that has created this SNAFU. How dare you demand others research when you are wholely unwilling to do so yourself? Listening to a salesman's pitch is not research!

FYI, since you want to leave the data to the engineers, please forward it to me immediately. I am an engineer and use the same principle involved in the SIR frequently in my work dilution of high temperature, reactive and corrosive gasses. I told you point blank that 27 would not perform as you promised and that it would not be transparent.

As far as I can tell, this is the coup de gras of your 3 year vendetta against the E36. Congratulations. 3 drivers have posted in this thread alone that they are done with SCCA. I'm sure that doesn't break your heart though.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I do see your point. A car should not motor away and win when built to less than the full extent of the rules. However, I'm not sure you can say that the E36 folk are now in the rest of IT's world. Nobody else is mandated to use a performance-decreasing device whose implementation and impacts are not well understood. E36 owners are out by ourselves in uncharted waters here, aren't we?

tom [/b]

Tom,

Excellent observation again. The counter-opinion is that if you want to run 300lbs UNDER your 'process' weight, you have to reduce power to the appropriate level for that weight to match the class parameters. Nobody else gets to do this either.

I think it's fair to ask E36ers to pick their poison, an SIR that dictates the appropriate power level for 2850 OR to take an unrestricted engine and put it in a chassis that has to weigh what the process says it has to.

The CRB has obviously chosen the SIR. It is my true belief they think it is the best for all parties.

 

[lateapex911]

Some simple history.

E36 makes too much power in a full build.

PCAs are implemented.

E36 is discussed by ITAC (and CR, weight is discussed, and the SIR is suggested. ITAC is interested, but recommends weight.

CRB decides on a 27mm as recommended by computer simulations or other modeling done by Raetech, one of three vendors.

The sizing is questioned, there is some discussion and it is decided that real world testing needs to be done.

Testing commences, in a number of locations with a number of different cars. Unfortunatley, one car isn't a valid data point as it's not running correctly and hasn't been broken in, and another never materializes. Which limits data points.

The results are discussed again, and while the ITAC again likes some aspects of the SIR, it recommends weight.

The CRB decides on the 29mm SIR, but moves the implementation date back a month.

Those are the highpoints.

 

[Fastfred92]

I think it's fair to ask E36ers to pick their poison, an SIR that dictates the appropriate power level for 2850 OR to take an unrestricted engine and put it in a chassis that has to weigh what the process says it has to.

[/b]

Andy, I think weight is fine, just dont see the magical HP that makes 300 lbs your number... I dont understand why these mythical dyno sheets cant be made public ( both e36 and RX7 ) and it is my guess that most of the fast RX7's are not motec cars yet you point out to everyone (e36) that you are not a full build if you dont motec...... same for RX guys right??


And Bill, what j/y motors can you document that have won ITS races when there was somebody else running in the class ???? Here in the SE the j/y motors run behind the pack, not in front.....

And Steve E...... I am a fan of yours( us SE guys need to stick together, remember the war), just pointing out that you were within 2/10'ths at VIR this weekend, and that is the record. Q times don't make records and remember Chet's raced here at VIR several times both hot and mild but still holds the record with a e36 with NO plate, SIR whatever, just magical Sunbelt HP. Everybody has pointed out that he just checks out so I dont think cars nipping at his heels made for slower race times...

this smart ass is back to ebay, looking for clean RX7's maybe no sunroof...... eh

 

[seckerich]

It is my understanding that the ITAC has recommended weight be added to the BMW for the last few years and each time has been shot down by the CRB with some other lame remedy. How is it then that you say they are the champion of the SIR? I don't know most of them personally that I am aware of, but I have always had straight answers to any questions. If you want to go with a lynch mob--a call to the CRB is the best start. This has been 3 years of BS that NONE of the ITAC should have had to deal with. Every time the CRB gets faced with the weight increase they trot out another well intentioned but useless fix. For some reason that I would really like to know they feel they just have to make an SIR work in SCCA. 3150 seems a little high for the Bimmer but it does need something. If you have the numbers to make it work just spec the D--- intake system and have them made at a fair price--no exceptions. Sure have no problem with spec tires and other items?? Should give same results and no questions on where it was mounted and less chance of defeat like the flat plate.

 

[stevel]

I said that a large % of the BMW community thinks you do...and everything that has come out of your mouth has only enhanced it. [/b]

If that large % of the BMW community are the good folks that posted in that mega thread about SIR's over on Bimmerforum's and that's an accurate representation of the BMW community, than I am sad for those people. I have a hard time believing those people are even adults and trying to reason with them is futile at best. If that's the way they are going to treat other people, why should he even bother explaining himself? Just to be abused more? He tried his best to explain himself and just had shot after shot taken at him personally for no good reason.

I appreciate your admission that ITAC should have done due diligence FIRST. That is a big step! Now, to hell with the CRB: it is incumbent on YOU to release 2 things:

1) results from 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34mm SIR's you tested
2) minutes from all ITAC meeting in which you participated where this issue was discussed. Why are you avoiding this issue?????
[/b]

No, it's not incumbent on him or any other member of the ITAC to provide you with any info. It was NOT there decision NOR there recommendation. If you want the information go to the proper channels and get it! Get off your ass and do some work if you want some answers. Demanding it from people that aren't in the position to give it or even have all of this info is going to get you no where.

My point is that, despite your protestations, these perceptions have NOT gone away or been "shot down". Rather, they have only grown...and this moronic 29mm decision, mandated to be in effect in 5 weeks, while only making 160rwhp in a bona fide test, only cements that perception. And sorry, but you ARE backpedaling.
[/b]

Your argument is that 29mm is no good based on ONE, yes ONE, dyno sheet that reads 160rwhp? The same motor that made 180rwhp as a baseline and had an awful A/F ratio? The one that was supposedly tuned and a pro motor? You gotta come up with something better as to why 29mm is no good. Using that car as a datapoint holds no water for an argument. What you would rather have? Lose 19hp or have 300lbs added? I'll take the 19hp loss anyday.

s

 

[lateapex911]

ITAC, at your urging, recommended the SIR to CRB. It is, to be as polite as possible, disingenuous to now say ITAC was not involved.
[/b]

Huh?? Please provide your factual backing for that statement. As an engineer, i am sure you understand the need to provide the backing facts for your conclusions.

Jake, we'll be talking to Dave shortly. If we find out any new info I'll post it. I'll also be testing my car on track and dyno so I'll have info from the tests. I have a new engine and I'll break it in before I get on the dyno.
I would like to know Jake if you tried the SIR in differnet positions upstream of the AFM? I would think the best place if any would be just after the air filter if it would work at all. But I've been know to be wrong before.
[/b]

As I recall, we pushed it out with a spacer about 3", but it didn't resolve the issues. As time was limited, we mounted the AFM upstream and left it there for the rest of the runs. It will be interesting to hear of your results. What dyno type will you be using ?

 

[Geo]

You abstained from the final ITAC recommendation vote, as I understand it. That's mighty christian of you. (BTW, why is it that you abstained? Is it because you were concerned about the perception of bias or conflict of interest?)

ITAC, at your urging, recommended the SIR to CRB. [/b]

I don't know where you get your info, but it's wrong.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

You promoted it. You backed it. You promised it would work and said "trust me".[/b]

Yup - we supported the decision the CRB made. We trusted the info that was given to us.

You abstained from the final ITAC recommendation vote, as I understand it. That's mighty christian of you. (BTW, why is it that you abstained? Is it because you were concerned about the perception of bias or conflict of interest?)[/b]

Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble but there was no need to vote in 2005. It was unanimous. The ITAC recomended the process weight. Knowing that the CRB went with a FPR in 2004-2005 when we recommended the weight then too, we also recomemended that if they thought the weight was too much (300+ lbs) and they wanted to keep the current weight of 2850, they would need to restrict the power to a level appropriate for that weight to fit into the performance envelope of ITS.

ITAC, at your urging, recommended the SIR to CRB. It is, to be as polite as possible, disingenuous to now say ITAC was not involved.[/b]

See above. Check your facts.

It does NOT work as advertised. You were wrong. You, despite having promised to do so on this site, have not stood up and taken responsibility. You have blamed CRB and now Finch instead.[/b]

What responsibility do you want ME to take? It wasn't my decision. We supported the CRB in their decision. We (the SCCA) were wrong on the sizing. The CRB has recognized the error and is fixing it. THAT is what I told you would happen if the sizing was wrong.

Finch is a salesman. I don't blame a fisherman for fishing. You bought his pitch hook, line, and sinker. It is your failure to research that has created this SNAFU. How dare you demand others research when you are wholely unwilling to do so yourself? Listening to a salesman's pitch is not research! [/b]

What motive does he have to give the CRB the wrong sizing? The technology is used in other classes in the SCCA, CRB members have experieince with it. It was a mathematical model that was off. Should testing have been done? Yes. Said that.

FYI, since you want to leave the data to the engineers, please forward it to me immediately. I am an engineer and use the same principle involved in the SIR frequently in my work dilution of high temperature, reactive and corrosive gasses. I told you point blank that 27 would not perform as you promised and that it would not be transparent. [/b]

Call Raetech if you want to talk the talk. I don't recall you telling anyone that the 29mm was the right size...where is that quote? I think you dismissed the whole technology when it came out. I could be wrong. Point me to where you recommend a size.

As far as I can tell, this is the coup de gras of your 3 year vendetta against the E36. Congratulations. 3 drivers have posted in this thread alone that they are done with SCCA. I'm sure that doesn't break your heart though.

[/b]

Ahh, there it is. The parting shot based in fluff and fiction. I wrote in to the CRB asking for a weight correction in 2003 when I WAS an ITS competitor (before there was a method to do so) because it was pretty obvious it was wrong. I was not alone. Since then, myriads of letters requesting something be done have been logged. I can name plenty of people on this site who have written in. The members put it on the agenda, not me.

I am sorry these three have decided to go elsewhere. Without a fair shot with the 29mm, I think they are wrong to do so. Having said that, it is a pretty frustrating process to have to weather, I understand that.

I am done with you Double. Your accusations are rediculous and you just want to fight. DJ has it right.

 

[seckerich]

Andy, I think weight is fine, just dont see the magical HP that makes 300 lbs your number... I dont understand why these mythical dyno sheets cant be made public ( both e36 and RX7 ) and it is my guess that most of the fast RX7's are not motec cars yet you point out to everyone (e36) that you are not a full build if you dont motec...... same for RX guys right??
And Bill, what j/y motors can you document that have won ITS races when there was somebody else running in the class ???? Here in the SE the j/y motors run behind the pack, not in front.....

And Steve E...... I am a fan of yours( us SE guys need to stick together, remember the war), just pointing out that you were within 2/10'ths at VIR this weekend, and that is the record. Q times don't make records and remember Chet's raced here at VIR several times both hot and mild but still holds the record with a e36 with NO plate, SIR whatever, just magical Sunbelt HP. Everybody has pointed out that he just checks out so I dont think cars nipping at his heels made for slower race times...

this smart ass is back to ebay, looking for clean RX7's maybe no sunroof...... eh
[/b]

No disrespect intended Fred--we just disagree sometimes. I think 300 is a little much for the Bimmer as well. Clear track laps just don't hold up in the race though. An average BMW can hold you up in every corner where you might be able to carry the speed with the RX and then just motor away on the next straight to just repeat the same thing every lap. The BMW can hang with us in the corners so where is the weakness? Give me 30HP in pocket and equal handling and see what happens. PS Ran 2:14.4 in Qual at 38 degree temps. Cold = Fast I would play with cam timing-valve angles-stem size- or my vanos/vtec--but all I can work with is mixture and timing--aint Motec grand!!

 

[Harry Balszac]

Do you think I let what I do in my spare time with Mazda's, influences my votes on the committee? If you do, you are wrong. Like I said, the system won't allow it. I would have been out on my ass years ago. I am about to buy an E36 M3 that I once raced in the 90's and we did of course buy Tim Richmond's old E36 World Challenge car...
The people who have taken the time to listen...and understand the issues have no problems.
Again with the conflict of interest. Get to the issues. If you can't let go of this one, I can't help you.
I am telling you that the sizing we got FROM Finch turned out to NOT BE the size the CRB went with. What is your beef with that? There was a mistake made - the CRB for making it a rule without testing and the initial sizing of 27mm. Not sure what else you want to here. Backpedaling? So be it. Some would say it's a correction to a mistake.


No it's not. The CRB did the testing. They will release the data.

Ask me my opinion on any BMW issue and I will tell you.
[/b]

Sigh. I am sad to see what looks like more backpedaling, Andy. And I'd still like you & your cronies to tell me how posting my real name has affected my credibility. LOL!

And I notice, by its absence, any answer to my simple request that you release ALL transcripts of all ITAC meetings in which you participated and this issue was discussed.

Why, pray tell, are you totally avoiding even answering this reasonable request.

Do you have something to hide? What is REALLY in those transcripts, Andy.

As for Steve...sorry, sport, but your broad-brush insult of the BMW community who happens to participate over at BF speaks volumes about you. It, frankly, tells us all we need to know about your agenda & biases. No, Steve, he did NOT "explain himself". He said "trust me" and we did. And look what has resulted. And now he is blaming raetech.

Too damned funny.

By the way, Steve, it is "their", not "there".

 

[Geo]

Sigh. I am sad to see what looks like more backpedaling, Andy. And I'd still like you & your cronies to tell me how posting my real name has affected my credibility. LOL!

And I notice, by its absence, any answer to my simple request that you release ALL transcripts of all ITAC meetings in which you participated and this issue was discussed.

Why, pray tell, are you totally avoiding even answering this reasonable request.

Do you have something to hide? What is REALLY in those transcripts, Andy.

[/b]

Well, you've already been told, but I'll make it official....

If you want that information, write to the CRB. The ITAC serves the CRB. If they feel you are entitled to that information, they can provide it.

 

[RSTPerformance]

Not going to wast my time reading all of 1 days worth of posts that add up to 3 pages and 1,500 views of this whole nonsence

but I did want to show my support for Andy and others who have helped make a change where one was certainly needed. I will wait to judge if it was the best choice till after I see real results.

Congrats, and keep up the dedication to making IT and SCCA the best!!!

Thanks again;

Raymond "I wonder if some of those slow ITS BMW's will go back to BMW club?" Blethen

PS: Don't bother replying to my comments, I probably wont get them as I don't have enough time in the day/night to read through everything in this. Feel free to PM me sometime though

 

[stevel]

As for Steve...sorry, sport, but your broad-brush insult of the BMW community who happens to participate over at BF speaks volumes about you. It, frankly, tells us all we need to know about your agenda & biases. No, Steve, he did NOT "explain himself". He said "trust me" and we did. And look what has resulted. And now he is blaming raetech.
[/b]

My broad brush insult? My agenda & biases? Wow. Hate to break it to you "sport" but I really have no dog in this hunt, at all. I was just asking if this large % of the BMW community that "perceives" these conflicts of interests is representative of the people that posted (bashed) in that SIR thread? If they are one in the same, I merely said there's no point in repeating himself. They're just going to take more shots at him. I made no broad brush insult of the BMW community. Read it again. Did I take issue with the way some people took personal shots at others in that SIR thread? Absolutely and those are the people I did insult. You're looking for something that isn't there. And he explained himself, over and over in that BF thread. To paraphrase it all into "trust me" is total BS and you didn't obviously read it all.

By the way, Steve, it is "their", not "there".
[/b]

This also speaks volumes about you too. By attempting to belittle people and lacking a solid argument on the topic at hand.

s

 

[Harry Balszac]

Well, you've already been told, but I'll make it official....

If you want that information, write to the CRB. The ITAC serves the CRB. If they feel you are entitled to that information, they can provide it.
[/b]

Geo, I have, and thank you.

However, regarding your last sentence. If they feel I am "entitled" to it??? That holier-than-thou elitist mentality does NOT show the SCCA in its best light. Is this really how you see things, too, Geo?

Let me make this EXTREMELY clear: you had better frikking BELIEVE we are "entitled" to it. Keeping this basic info secret will remove any remaining shred of credibility the vaunted poltroons in the CRB and ITAC have left, and will confirm, beyond any reasonabe doubt, the mass suspicions that underhandedness, skullduggery, corruption, and self-dealing was at play here. Irrespective of whether there is any truth to that or not!! Frankly, it would be disastrous for SCCA to NOT release this information.

Still waiting to see if I am "entitled" to see transcripts of all ITAC meeting where Andy was a participant & this issue was discussed.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Do you have something to hide? What is REALLY in those transcripts, Andy.

[/b]

Like I said, ask me my thoughts on a BMW issue and I will tell you. There is nothing to hide, just ask. ASK.

 

[Harry Balszac]

Like I said, ask me my thoughts on a BMW issue and I will tell you. There is nothing to hide, just ask. ASK.
[/b]

Please provide all transcripts of ITAC meetings where you were present & this BMW issue was discussed.

There, I have followed your request exactly, asking you about a BMW issue.

Do you have something to hide in those transcripts, Andy?

 

[seckerich]

Sigh. I am sad to see what looks like more backpedaling, Andy. And I'd still like you & your cronies to tell me how posting my real name has affected my credibility. LOL!

That is how you smell a skunk crawling in to stir up crap and make personal attacks on their first day. Does smell a little rank about now. Cronies?? Sounds more like an ITAC gang--do you have some worldly info your engineering mind can share with us?? We have all learned so much from your educated posts and insight.