April SIR ruling

[lateapex911]

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.[/b]

Uh, no. As the 'prosecuter' in this case (that's what you're acting like, and as if a President commited treason, LOL) it's your job to provide proof of your claims. I don't have, nor wish to waste my life searching through old quotes to set you straight. But if you're going to spout this stuff, be accurate at least.
Fact: 210? 210what??? crank? wheel? Since we have been discusssing wheel here I'll go with that. The sum of our statements is that we said we were told (like I am a flow dynamics engineer and have a ProE or whatever other flow modeling work station, LOL) that the SIR wouldn't affect torque or HP below it's design level. Nobody ever stated that the design level was 210. Why bother? That's at or just over where the top dogs are now....no need to restrict everyone to power nobody is making, right?

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, would you rather he, and all the BMW guys who have poor running motors, or who haven't made improvements to reach the higher HP levels that are possible, get a freebie? Why are the BMW drivers more entitled than the rest of the IT category? Why aren't the guys who can't afford to build a top NX2000 or Neon motor entitled to a freebie??

Those are the questions I get in my PM....from guys who don't want to get abused by posting in this thread.

Nobody has denied that the SIR has not lived up to all it's "selling points". But there are plenty of wise people here who feel that the "selling points" (ie, the supposed transparency to non built motors) wasn't a good thing at all! It was a huge detractor!

As it sits, THAT is what all the complaining has been about here.(And a bunch of procedural stuff, I'll get to that later)

The complaint isn't that 20 hp is trimmed of the top runners. The complain is that 19hp has been trimmed off a car that isn't broken in and was running deangerously lean.

I guarantee you that the guys in ITA who just bolted in over 100 pounds....and haven't even begun to build their CRXs or 240 SX's are looking at that and saying "SO?".

 

[buldogge]

Regardless of any drama you guys are engaging in...THIS below is the crux of the problem/issue summarized.

100% correct and valid.

Unfortunately, as already stated the NEW answer is...tough shit...go run BMWCCA.

I for one don't want to run BMWCCA...zero desire.

However, I don't fell like being castrated either. Give me a SIR that caps rwhp at 185-190rwhp as per the "formula" and as promised and I will not "whine" ONE BIT.

If the product didn't work as advertised then come up with a new/different/altered solution...

...not simply OH WELL!!!

Please...seriously.

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]

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

This has been proven a lie.[/b]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. A lie is when someone knowingly deceives you. That is NOT what happened. A description of the technology was given and assurances were handed out based on info from the expert on the technology. Some aspects of the technology didn't translate to a car with low compression, EFI, HAF and a TB. Was it a mistake to assign this handicap without testing? Yes. You have been educated on that now a few times. You get it?

Bill's starting HP is irrelevant, except it proves the lie.[/b]

You don't really mean LIE, do you?

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--[/b]

While I do not know how the CRB voted, I can tell you that some on the ITAC felt the same way.

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 tell me how this would be different had the E36 gotten an appropriately-sized flat-plate in 2005? Those who were low on power to begin with would suffer the same fate. Does it suck? Yes. But you can't be competitive without having the best stuff. At 2850, he is only 20whp off - at 3200 (and unrestricted), he is 30whp off!

You want to know what the only net loss of the effect on underprepped engine is? It's the absence of a free ride for guys who don't want to - or haven't yet spend the money to develop to the limit of the rules. When another BMW driver posted the following, many took offense to the desire for that free ride. Nobody else can run at the front without full development...do I feel for guys who may have to go from 180 to 160? Yes, but you can't make a class's-worth of decision based on the underprepared.

That aside, I want to know that only the highly-prepared cars are affected. I had a two great seasons in a row; I ran neck-and-neck with a Datsun, and had a great time chasing around an E30 and an Integra. There was no disparity, no walkaways. I spent several races within one second of my competition.

Adding too much weight will take that away. Taking away too much air will take that away from me. And if lose the fun I've been having, I'll feel cheated.[/b]

 

[DoubleD]

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.

[/b]

I don't think they lied, I think they didn't know better. Subtle but important difference which has no bearing on the end result.

 

[dj10]

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.
[/b]

Harry/ Dave/ whoever,

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

From what I heard in the begining I always believed it was an assumption the the SIR would not effect the lower output engines. It was only about a month ago I learned that this was not the case and in fact just like any other adjustment, be it a FPR or weight or SIR would as a matter of fact effect every engine. I don't believe in a conspiracy theory of lies......sorry.

From your status, how will this effect your ITS BMW? Have you tested the 29 mm SIR on your car? I'd really like to know how you mounted your SIR and the before and after effects on your E36 325. Is your car a vanos or not?

I'd be happy to pass anything along that I find when I start testing.
Best of luck racing this year, where ever.
dj

 

[seckerich]

Gentleman,

The ITAC members are doing a good job answering your questions and I'll be making a more detailed post to better explain our position on this. But the simple answer is we (the CR had a choice of adding a lot of weight or restricting the power. Since the car was already classed and there were no reports that the current weight couldn't be reached and believing that cars of similer weight make for better racing. We went with the restrictor.

The SIR was chosen over a much smaller flat plate for a couple of reasons but mostly to maintain the drivability and throttle response that makes a good race car. The current 29mm size pulls approximately 20 HP off the peak, bringing the E-36 within the classification proccess in use today.

There is no intention to make the E36 an uncompetive or undesirable race car. The only goal is to get this car classed where we can congratulate the BMW racers for a job well done without the under tone that their success is a result of a favorable classification instead of the hard work and skill of the team and driver.

Thanks, Bob
[/b]

Thanks for taking the time to clear that up. Good to see the CRB stand behind THEIR decision-even if we disagree.

 

[lateapex911]

What say you, Bob???
[/b]

Bob says, "I have a job, and I owe it to my clients to spend my time actually working for them".

OK, maybe that's not what he says, but the bottom line is that he was nice enough to post here, and has promised more detail down the road, so be polite and wait like the rest of us.

A note on procedural stuff.

I am on the ITAC. It's an appointed position. We work for, or should I say, report to, the CRB, and abide by the CRBs rules and doctrines. The CRB works for and reports to the BoD, and follows their rules and guidelines. The BoD works for you, and me, the "great unwashed membership".

When I work for the ITAC, I try to look at the big picture, the greater philosophy, and the good of the category in my dealings. The CRB oversees our category as it relates to itself, and the greater club racing scene.

My 'job' is to advise. That's it. I research, I discuss with people I respect, I talk to the members...we are seen as one of the most open and progressive Ad Hoc committees in the SCCA. But the bottom line is that we advise.

Non of us have any right to release any minutes or transcripts or any information dealing with our jobs, unless directed to by the CRB. Who would take that order from the BoD.

What do you think Bob is going to do, stop his day, call an emergency CRB meeting, get the other members to agree that you deserve all the info you request now, call an emergency BoD meeting, convince them of the same, then compile and release the info you desire???

Oh...he volunteers his time. Like I do, and Andy, the entire CRB, and the BoD.

I appreciate you wanting information. What I don't apreciate is a sniping and sarcastic prodding when you know it's unreasonable.

Write an official request, and you will get an official response.

 

[Harry Balszac]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. A lie is when someone knowingly deceives you. That is NOT what happened. A description of the technology was given and assurances were handed out based on info from the expert on the technology. Some aspects of the technology didn't translate to a car with low compression, EFI, HAF and a TB. Was it a mistake to assign this handicap without testing? Yes. You have been educated on that now a few times. You get it? [/b]

Andy, you guys took the word of a vendor at 100% face value, did NO independent testing, and then poo-pooed any & all folks who asked why not...then promised us it would work & to trust you guys. While I assume no malicious intent, this IS a lie.

You don't really mean LIE, do you?
While I do not know how the CRB voted, I can tell you that some on the ITAC felt the same way. [/b]

Yes, see above.

So tell me how this would be different had the E36 gotten an appropriately-sized flat-plate in 2005? Those who were low on power to begin with would suffer the same fate. Does it suck? Yes. But you can't be competitive without having the best stuff. At 2850, he is only 20whp off - at 3200 (and unrestricted), he is 30whp off! [/b]

I cannot answer that what-if, Andy. All I know is that you guys promised it would have NO negative effect on lower-power motors, and poo-pooed those who doubted the validity of this promise.

You want to know what the only net loss of the effect on underprepped engine is? It's the absence of a free ride for guys who don't want to - or haven't yet spend the money to develop to the limit of the rules. When another BMW driver posted the following, many took offense to the desire for that free ride. Nobody else can run at the front without full development...do I feel for guys who may have to go from 180 to 160? Yes, but you can't make a class's-worth of decision based on the underprepared.
[/b]

BULLSHIT, Andy. You guys promised it would ONLY affect the top-prepared motors, and poo-pooed those of us who questioned this promise. Now, you are seemingly engaged in flank-speed backpedaling & blaming the victim.

 

[lateapex911]

However, I don't fell like being castrated either. Give me a SIR that caps rwhp at 185-190rwhp as per the "formula" and as promised and I will not "whine" ONE BIT.


Please...seriously.
[/b]

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????

 

[dj10]

Gentleman,
The SIR was chosen over a much smaller flat plate for a couple of reasons but mostly to maintain the drivability and throttle response that makes a good race car. The current 29mm size pulls approximately 20 HP off the peak, bringing the E-36 within the classification proccess in use today.

There is no intention to make the E36 an uncompetive or undesirable race car. The only goal is to get this car classed where we can congratulate the BMW racers for a job well done without the under tone that their success is a result of a favorable classification instead of the hard work and skill of the team and driver.

Thanks, Bob
[/b]

I would like anyone from the ITAC to answer 1 question. What would happen if the enacted 29 mm SIR is found to make the BMW's uncompetive? I don't mean to muddy the water any more than it is but I believe everyone needs to know this.
Thanks

 

[Harry Balszac]

Bob says, "I have a job, and I owe it to my clients to spend my time actually working for them".

OK, maybe that's not what he says, but the bottom line is that he was nice enough to post here, and has promised more detail down the road, so be polite and wait like the rest of us.

A note on procedural stuff.

I am on the ITAC. It's an appointed position. We work for, or should I say, report to, the CRB, and abide by the CRBs rules and doctrines. The CRB works for and reports to the BoD, and follows their rules and guidelines. The BoD works for you, and me, the "great unwashed membership".

When I work for the ITAC, I try to look at the big picture, the greater philosophy, and the good of the category in my dealings. The CRB oversees our category as it relates to itself, and the greater club racing scene.

My 'job' is to advise. That's it. I research, I discuss with people I respect, I talk to the members...we are seen as one of the most open and progressive Ad Hoc committees in the SCCA. But the bottom line is that we advise.

Non of us have any right to release any minutes or transcripts or any information dealing with our jobs, unless directed to by the CRB. Who would take that order from the BoD.

What do you think Bob is going to do, stop his day, call an emergency CRB meeting, get the other members to agree that you deserve all the info you request now, call an emergency BoD meeting, convince them of the same, then compile and release the info you desire???

Oh...he volunteers his time. Like I do, and Andy, the entire CRB, and the BoD.

I appreciate you wanting information. What I don't apreciate is a sniping and sarcastic prodding when you know it's unreasonable.

Write an official request, and you will get an official response.
[/b]

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

And, I have made the official request.

 

[lateapex911]

I would like anyone from the ITAC to answer 1 question. What would happen if the enacted 29 mm SIR is found to make the BMW's uncompetive? I don't mean to muddy the water any more than it is but I believe everyone needs to know this.
Thanks
[/b]

Since we can all see what happens when we try to be up front and communicative, I will try to answer this in the best way, but as I am not the boss, I can not PROMISE ANYTHING....

(Nor have I in the past, but thats another story)

In my discussions with CRB members, they have indicated along these lines.."If it's wrong, we'll fix it"
(My response, at the time was: "I don't want it wrong. This is the last time I want to be adjusting this car, enough is enough. Whatever we do, it needs to be right")

Now, you said "uncompetitive".

I would respond by stating that if emprical evidence comes to light that is scientifically sound, that shows the car is not meeting the design goal, then the situation would be looked at, and if the offset is great enough, a change will be made.

I think Bob stated it well.

 

[Joe Harlan]

I would like anyone from the ITAC to answer 1 question. What would happen if the enacted 29 mm SIR is found to make the BMW's uncompetive? I don't mean to muddy the water any more than it is but I believe everyone needs to know this.
Thanks
[/b]

DJ, To be honest with you I am convinced it is not enough. The 27 was well inside the target range and a 29 will not restrict the car to the point that it fits the formula. One only has to look at the one Dyno sheet posted here to see a poorly tuned car was tested to be able to present a failure by those that don't like the technology. Look closely at the jagged dyno graph and compare it to the fuel curve. Looks like the knock sensor was doing its job not to blow this thing up. Put some fuel in that motor and it's a whole new ball game.
So My opinion is the Bimmer caught a break and we will still see them at the pointy end of the front.

 

[JamesB]

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

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

Truethfully you where rude.

All timestamps are server time:

8:04am - Bob posts
8:37am - you state your request on a public forum without mention use of proper official channels.
10:58am - you post agian showing your impatience due to lack of immediate response to your public request.

Even I find that offensive. So maybe some patience is due don't you think?

 

[Harry Balszac]

Truethfully you where rude.

All timestamps are server time:

8:04am - Bob posts
8:37am - you state your request on a public forum without mention use of proper official channels.
10:58am - you post agian showing your impatience due to lack of immediate response to your public request.

Even I find that offensive. So maybe some patience is due don't you think?
[/b]

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.

 

[e36its]

The complain is that 19hp has been trimmed off a car that isn't broken in and was running deangerously lean.
[/b]

Jake --

I might be displaying my ignorance here (won't be the first time), but looking at the graphs posted for the 180 hp unrestricted / 161 hp restricted motor, don't the air fuel ratios look like they're right around stoich (14.7)? On the unrestricted dyno chart:

the motor started out around 15:1 at 2800 rpm
stayed there until around 3800 rpm
kicked up to above 15:1 from 3800 to 4000 rpm
descended back down below 15:1 from there to 5200 rpm
kicked up to 15:1 at 5200 rpm or so
finally descended to 14:1 as it got up to 7k rpm

Am I reading that wrong? I'm not saying this dyno chart is the end-all be-all of tests that proves that you all hate the E36 and by association, me... I'm just trying to parse the bit about the A/F.

Uninformed comment: The curve sure seems awfully bumpy up there near the top...

I guarantee you that the guys in ITA who just bolted in over 100 pounds....and haven't even begun to build their CRXs or 240 SX's are looking at that and saying "SO?".[/b]

I can see that, Jake -- the difference, IMHO, is that weight is easy to install and its impacts are fairly well known. It sucks, sure... but you know what it's going to do.

tom

 

[dj10]

DJ, To be honest with you I am convinced it is not enough. The 27 was well inside the target range and a 29 will not restrict the car to the point that it fits the formula. One only has to look at the one Dyno sheet posted here to see a poorly tuned car was tested to be able to present a failure by those that don't like the technology. Look closely at the jagged dyno graph and compare it to the fuel curve. Looks like the knock sensor was doing its job not to blow this thing up. Put some fuel in that motor and it's a whole new ball game.
So My opinion is the Bimmer caught a break and we will still see them at the pointy end of the front. [/b]

Joe, I'll be testing a freshly built 2.5 L engine within the next 3 weeks and I have a adjust. fuel reg. There were a lot of ? with that engine. If Dave Finch DID say to mount the SIR in front of the AFM?? Why hasn't any got it to work?

 

[seckerich]

[

I cannot answer that what-if, Andy. All I know is that you guys promised it would have NO negative effect on lower-power motors, and poo-pooed those who doubted the validity of this promise.
BULLSHIT, Andy. You guys promised it would ONLY affect the top-prepared motors, and poo-pooed those of us who questioned this promise. Now, you are seemingly engaged in flank-speed backpedaling & blaming the victim.
[/quote]
And this sums up the reason I feel the way I do about the BMW. You still think your under-prepped, Under developed mid pack car in any other brand should still be a front runner with a SIR in place. You have no idea if the motors you say lost this power can actually tune back to the 180 now do you?? A honda gets classified with and without Vtec at much different weights but somebody managed to slip VANOS by past CRB when the attitude was much different about IT. Yet you feel entitled to keep this advantage without the work and money every other brand and car has to spend. 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.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, I'll be testing a freshly built 2.5 L engine within the next 3 weeks and I have a adjust. fuel reg. There were a lot of ? with that engine. If Dave Finch DID say to mount the SIR in front of the AFM?? Why hasn't any got it to work?
[/b]

In front? Between the MAF and the TB is where this thing needs to go. I don't think you can get it far enough away from the the MAF to no screw up the signal. On a side note DJ you are welcome to Email me a phone number and any help or advice I can offer is yours for the asking.

 

[Harry Balszac]

And this sums up the reason I feel the way I do about the BMW. You still think your under-prepped, Under developed mid pack car in any other brand should still be a front runner with a SIR in place. You have no idea if the motors you say lost this power can actually tune back to the 180 now do you?? A honda gets classified with and without Vtec at much different weights but somebody managed to slip VANOS by past CRB when the attitude was much different about IT. Yet you feel entitled to keep this advantage without the work and money every other brand and car has to spend. 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.
[/b]

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.