It's here...
- Thread starter Andy Bettencourt
- Start date
Joe Harlan
New member
Bill Miller
New member
IIRC, there's Marren Motorsports in Ct. as well. I think they advertise in the back of SportsCar.
mlytle
New member
this coming from an e36 guy..
sir's seem like they are good. i have said that since the first post in the first thread where they were suggested months ago.
lead bad. i have said that consistenly too. more abuse of components, more fargin weight to trailer around at 8mpg...;-)
why would i object to sir's?
1/ they should be applied to EVERY its car, not just bmw's. they are advantageous to everyone to cap cheating and keep the hp/weight ratios near target.
2/ they are way more expensive than i thought they would be. not just the $400 part, but all the install issues and engine tuning, again. if everyone was getting them and it had been tested, ok. but just one car type as another experiment? ouch.
3/ there was no testing done in an actual its car to see if they perform to the theoretical ability given the fact that its rules preclude many of the mounting and airbox options that are available in other open classes that use them. i am looking at the dimensions of the sir and looking at the small area on an e36 behind the headlight to put it, plumbing and an air filter and shaking my head.
4/ the implementation timeline is unacceptable. this is a pretty big development and install curve. two weeks is a joke. this should have been notice that they would be required starting 01jan07.
and to andy and george - you guys were unjustly abused on the bmw forum...you tried valiantly to get the point across, but several folks were not listening, and they weren't its drivers.
marshall
sir's seem like they are good. i have said that since the first post in the first thread where they were suggested months ago.
lead bad. i have said that consistenly too. more abuse of components, more fargin weight to trailer around at 8mpg...;-)
why would i object to sir's?
1/ they should be applied to EVERY its car, not just bmw's. they are advantageous to everyone to cap cheating and keep the hp/weight ratios near target.
2/ they are way more expensive than i thought they would be. not just the $400 part, but all the install issues and engine tuning, again. if everyone was getting them and it had been tested, ok. but just one car type as another experiment? ouch.
3/ there was no testing done in an actual its car to see if they perform to the theoretical ability given the fact that its rules preclude many of the mounting and airbox options that are available in other open classes that use them. i am looking at the dimensions of the sir and looking at the small area on an e36 behind the headlight to put it, plumbing and an air filter and shaking my head.
4/ the implementation timeline is unacceptable. this is a pretty big development and install curve. two weeks is a joke. this should have been notice that they would be required starting 01jan07.
and to andy and george - you guys were unjustly abused on the bmw forum...you tried valiantly to get the point across, but several folks were not listening, and they weren't its drivers.
marshall
Banzai240
New member
Marshal,
Thanks for your rational and well thought out input...
Just a couple items worth noting...
The tuning issue... According to those who have run these on Dynos, as well as raced with them... NO additional tuning was required... No jets had to be changed... No FI adjusted... Nothing... the car ran exactly the same right up to the stall point... Then it just quites making HP...
Second, and I suppose this is also related to the first... these have been tested for over a year on a variety of cars... Talk to Bob Dowie for more information...
I'm sorry for the frustration this has caused, but I think it will be worth it in the long run for the good of the class... I have already heard of at least two new ITS cars on the way in our area because of this adjustment alone... People actually feel as though there is a chance now...
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Marshall,
I agree ans feel bad for the timing. We discussed this at length, time and again, over the summer, and into the fall. Obviously, this was not an easy move, and it was given it's share of attention...if not more. The packege went off the the CRB, and then there were some additions and alterations. After the CRB discussed it, it needed BoD approval. At least that's the way I understand the timing. Obviously, the CRB and the BoD have much on their plate, and honestly, this is just one part of a very large change for IT. To the CRBs credit, they too gave it some serious consideration and attention. Unfortunatley, the gears turned a bit nore slowly than I would like, or the clock sped up when nobody was looking, LOL.
I truly wish that it had been released sooner, but it is what it is, your point is very valid, and it won't go unrecorded.
On the cheating aspect-
An SIR can't stop cheating. I would be foolish to write instructions, but trust me, there are ways around it. And just like an unrestricted engine will respond to certain tweaks and cheatsa, so will an SIR equipped engine. It will remove the tempation to go after big top end power though, so while it can't prevent cheating, it can help reduce the effectiveness. But if there are ways to boost power under the curve that are illegal, there is nothing (other than you and me) to stop someone who has bad values.
So, the SIR is a benefit in the cheating department, but not a full blown solution.
I agree ans feel bad for the timing. We discussed this at length, time and again, over the summer, and into the fall. Obviously, this was not an easy move, and it was given it's share of attention...if not more. The packege went off the the CRB, and then there were some additions and alterations. After the CRB discussed it, it needed BoD approval. At least that's the way I understand the timing. Obviously, the CRB and the BoD have much on their plate, and honestly, this is just one part of a very large change for IT. To the CRBs credit, they too gave it some serious consideration and attention. Unfortunatley, the gears turned a bit nore slowly than I would like, or the clock sped up when nobody was looking, LOL.
I truly wish that it had been released sooner, but it is what it is, your point is very valid, and it won't go unrecorded.
On the cheating aspect-
An SIR can't stop cheating. I would be foolish to write instructions, but trust me, there are ways around it. And just like an unrestricted engine will respond to certain tweaks and cheatsa, so will an SIR equipped engine. It will remove the tempation to go after big top end power though, so while it can't prevent cheating, it can help reduce the effectiveness. But if there are ways to boost power under the curve that are illegal, there is nothing (other than you and me) to stop someone who has bad values.
So, the SIR is a benefit in the cheating department, but not a full blown solution.
mlytle
New member
but were they tested on an its e36? at least for practical install? to confirm the theoretical output on an its car? sorrry, i don't know who bob dowie is.
there still seems to be some confusion on the output of a 27mm sir. an engine builder i am speaking with called raetech today and was told 27mm is good for 180-190hp. reconfirming wheel or crank. i would think raetch would quote crank, but...
lateapex911
Super Moderator
As for Dowies credentials, check the thread I started with a letter from the BoD....
Raetech...(Dave Finch's firm) did the calculations for sizing, so they SHOULD know the designed number is 220 or so crank.
dj10
New member
Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 27 2006, 07:49 PM
any tracks near the ocean? i gotta have jurisdiction!
[snapback]72545[/snapback]
Get the New Jersey out of moth balls, they don't have to be to near the ocean!
New Jersey gave us support and I was 20 miles inland. Pretty scary, always worrying about 1 falling short. hehe
mlytle
New member
i had thought i read in a previous thread that raetech did the calcs, that is why i am confused. i just confirmed the conversation with raetech indicated 27mm sir limits to 180-190hp AT THE CRANK. hmmm, maybe we can get e36 325's reclassified to itb?
could someone on the itac/crb please talk with raetech and confirm we are all talking apples to apples and not a mixed bowl of fruit? we appear to be getting different stories from the same source. 
thanks.raetech indicates that the sirs are selling like hotcakes....
lateapex911
Super Moderator
i had thought i read in a previous thread that raetech did the calcs, that is why i am confused. i just confirmed the conversation with raetech indicated 27mm sir limits to 180-190hp AT THE CRANK. hmmm, maybe we can get e36 325's reclassified to itb?
raetech indicates that the sirs are selling like hotcakes....
[/b]
yea, 180 at the crank would be aproblem....PM me on this .
http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=471856
It went ugly early there...now it's just downright absurd...
dj10
New member
conversation with raetech indicated 27mm sir limits to 180-190hp AT THE CRANK. hmmm, maybe we can get e36 325's reclassified to itb?
If 18% is the correct loss from crank to rwhp, we will be running 148hp rwhp!
This is unacceptable if true. Come on CRB lets get some accurate infomation here.
If 18% is the correct loss from crank to rwhp, we will be running 148hp rwhp!
This is unacceptable if true. Come on CRB lets get some accurate infomation here.
mlytle
New member
thanks for the point jake. i went back and reread that thread. everything in there is theory and practice in other classes. good stuff, but it apparently confirms that neither the crb or the itac actually tried to put a 27mm sir in an e36 for a reality check on the practicality of install and some basic before and after dyno numbers. sir's may not be new, but they are new to a restricted class like it. common sense indicates that something like this should at least be tried once before legislating an entire group to use it. if this one simple task had been undertaken, the credibility of the crb would be a bit higher than the zero is it currently.
again, i am not against sir's. i am against being mass test subjects when it is completely avoidable.
is is too much to ask for a several month hold to be put on the sir implementation until the scca can at least test the theory on one car????