It's here...

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by xr4racer@Jan 20 2006, 11:10 PM
Joe, thanks for your reply, when I look at my friends cars again next week I will try to se how mch weight they can leglally lose. What gets me is the CRB's love of SIR's that have not been proven on the track or if they were I am not aware.
  The GTL cars SIR size got changed to a 1mm lower size even before more than a few had installed them.
  To answer the other question about why SIR's are not on all cars.  It is not needed on the other cars because they can carry the weight that the process shows they should race at.  For some reason the CRB chose SIR's over putting 300 or so lbs on the BMW's.
  To me I can't understand why they reduce weight on slower cars and do not add weight to the faster cars.  It is EXTREMELY expensive to reduce a cars weight and not too much to bolt in more weight.
  As I stated earlier I have an 86 RX-7 and I would be one bolting in the weight.

Matt

[snapback]71507[/snapback]​

Matt, they are proven. they have been used in pro racing and in europe for years. I am not a big fan restricting anything but if it needs done this is the best way. The day a Z32 gets classed with one I will start construction on a new car.

 

[xr4racer]

I know these have been used in Pro racing and in Europe. I worked on getting the sealed airbox to not collapse in the 24 hrs of Daytona in the late 90's and early 2000's. They made us run a SIR on the SRP class cars, it did not go well even for the best of professional teams. They had nearly the same stall rule as the SCCA's 4 seconds. It was hard on the Lola B98 and Kudzu with a Chevy to get this to happen. The early attempts resulted in collapsed boxes or leaks. I just do not think this should be creeping into IT, why didn't they start in T1 with the $100,000 Vipers? The flat plate is good enough for T1 but not supposedly low budget IT cars??
I know this is allegedly an anomaly but I have heard that before and the precedent for their use in the future has occurred.

Matt

 

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 21 2006, 06:06 AM
Now before this whine fest goes to far I am gonna tell you that others have spent tons of development money to try to keep up with a car that was clearly misclassed and exploited by to many wins by drivers with marginal talent and many track records by guys with exceptional talent. Don't be crying because your trophy harvesting days have come to a slow down. The E36 will still be the class of the field if it is driven as well and as hard as many of the guys that have put up with the misclassification of that car for all these years. I promise 350 bucks and a little hard work is not nearly the cost of the dyno time and header construction we have had to do over the years.

[snapback]71506[/snapback]​

yeah, and all that development resulted in your cars being closer to the limit and FASTER by your choice. if you hadn't done that work already, then your cars weren't fully prepared. that ain't the bmw's fault. if you wanted to build to the limit, you had to do that work anyway. trying to compare that with scca experiments isn't even close to a valid argument. we have to do all the same work, to make the car slower. twice. after we invested time and effort to make the car faster in the first place. $350? yeah, right. that is only the basic piece. now add fabrication, other parts, more dyno time, etc.

this isn't about "crying about trophy harvesting days". spare me that bs whine. this is about repeated changes by scca causing yearly rework to the same cars. i just want to go race and have fun. having to shell out $1000 and a bunch of labor every winter just be legal and slower ain't very fun.

if for some reason a car was "misclassed" ahead of current its cars (including the bmw), i could still go race and have fun and there wouldn't be any forced cost to it. this is now the second year in a row of a significant mandated cost before bmw's can race legally in its.

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 21 2006, 01:09 AM
yeah, and all that development resulted in your cars being closer to the limit and FASTER by your choice. if you hadn't done that work already, then your cars weren't fully prepared.   that ain't the bmw's fault.  if you wanted to build to the limit, you had to do that work anyway.  trying to compare that with scca experiments isn't even close to a valid argument.  we have to do all the same work, to make the car slower.  twice.  after we invested time and effort to make the car faster in the first place.  $350?  yeah, right.  that is only the basic piece.  now add fabrication, other parts, more dyno time, etc.

this isn't about "crying about trophy harvesting days".  spare me that bs whine.  this is about repeated changes by scca causing yearly rework to the same cars.  i just want to go race and have fun.  having to shell out $1000 and a bunch of labor every winter just be legal and slower ain't very fun.

if for some reason a car was "misclassed" ahead of current its cars (including the bmw), i could still go race and have fun and there wouldn't be any forced cost to it.  this is now the second year in a row of a significant mandated cost before bmw's can race legally in its.

[snapback]71511[/snapback]​

As much as the above sounds like a whine-fest, I have to agree, to a point. They should have just thrown 250 - 300 # at the car and been done with it.

I'm not really a fan of writing rules for one category, that are based on the rules of another other category. For a good example of how this doesn't work, look at the early limited-prep Prod rules. They made reference to IT head prep. Well, if you look at the '06 PCS, I'm pretty sure all those old IT references are gone.

 

[JLawton]

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 21 2006, 12:09 AM
yeah, and all that development resulted in your cars being closer to the limit and FASTER by your choice. if you hadn't done that work already, then your cars weren't fully prepared.  that ain't the bmw's fault.  if you wanted to build to the limit, you had to do that work anyway.  trying to compare that with scca experiments isn't even close to a valid argument.  we have to do all the same work, to make the car slower.  twice.  after we invested time and effort to make the car faster in the first place.  $350?  yeah, right.  that is only the basic piece.  now add fabrication, other parts, more dyno time, etc.

this isn't about "crying about trophy harvesting days".  spare me that bs whine.  this is about repeated changes by scca causing yearly rework to the same cars.  i just want to go race and have fun.  having to shell out $1000 and a bunch of labor every winter just be legal and slower ain't very fun.

if for some reason a car was "misclassed" ahead of current its cars (including the bmw), i could still go race and have fun and there wouldn't be any forced cost to it.  this is now the second year in a row of a significant mandated cost before bmw's can race legally in its.

[snapback]71511[/snapback]​

No you miss the point, Even continuing to try yo make more power and better handling there was nothing left. My point is we didn't quit trying even though a half an effort was able to beat us. And to answer your question , no a flat plat is not as good as an engineered SIR. With the SIR the car will stay very driveable up to the point that the HP get knocked of the top.
Lastly the classification of a pure overdog did more damage to ITS over the years than any other poorly written rule in the GCR. This is an effort to bring some credibility back to the class that I applaud.


Matt as far as the SAB goes it's it's another big excuse for not wanting change. I can see some of the issues with the GT cars but we don't have the same issue here. In the case we have a single inlet intake manifold and a car that is already running a 3" intake pipe past the MAF.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 20 2006, 11:08 AM
We gave the CRB both options, they went with the SIR.

The outside performance envelope is dictated primarily by the stock/IT-prep hp of a car.  Anything that is 200+ stock hp is pretty much outside the envelope.  You COULD place anything in IT with a SIR but...

This car and situation is an anomoly...treat it as such.

AB

[snapback]71427[/snapback]​

Does this mean there's a chance of classing the 2.8l Z3 in ITS?? Stock it's at 189 hp?? Maybe I should finish that classification form and send it in.

James

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by mlytle@Jan 21 2006, 02:09 AM
........
this isn't about "crying about trophy harvesting days".  spare me that bs whine.  this is about repeated changes by scca causing yearly rework to the same cars.  i just want to go race and have fun.  ......

[snapback]71511[/snapback]​

Ok, then what would YOU want done? Keep in mind an entire class can spend as many buckets of money they want, but still come up short...not very fun for them.

So, SIR??? Or a smaller flat plate restrictor?
Or more weight? Lots of it?

I think you guys have been given a gift...a device that while requireing implementation, won't hurt your torque, your cornering speeds, your brakes or your raceability....

It is an attempt to level a field that everyone can see is lopsided.

There have been FAR more inequities over the years in IT...tha addition of new cars to classes at overly low weights have cost hundreds of guys THOUSANDs of dollars in marginalized value in both their racing experience, and their cars value.

You are not the first guy that has had to cross this bridge, and considerable thought and consideration was given to what would be the easiest (for you) and most effective way to handle your situation.

I'm sorry that you have been lucky enough to race an obvious overdog, (for years) and have had to endure several attempts to make things fair for all.

(You have no idea how many guys there are out ther right now thinking..."I wish I had their problems!!")

 

[BMW RACER]

Let me get this straight. Stock E36 throttle body is approx 64mm in diameter. 2005 SCCA says "Too fast, gotta cut it down to 56mm" Now a year later they say "Still too fast, let's make that 27mm"

They must be getting better dope in Topeka than Denver!

Maybe I'm the one on dope? (I'm sure you all will let me know)

27mm (1 1/16") is less than half the size of last years restrictor.

So now I must take my restricted E36 and drive around at half throttle! Oh yea and sort it out by February.

I really don't want to sound like a whiner, but doesn't sound a little extreem?

PLEASE CONVINCE ME IT'S WORTH EVEN SPENDING THE TIME AND MONEY ON THIS.

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by xr4racer@Jan 20 2006, 11:45 PM
  I also have not seen any comments on how the ITS  cars that lost all of the weight by these new rules will actually do it unless they hire Nicole Ritchie to drive for them or use remote controls. 
 

[snapback]71498[/snapback]​

A general response to this:

The weight reductions aren't only in ITS, and yes, it is known that the allowable weights may be impossible to acheive on certain cars.

But they were listed at those weights anyway, as to allow the industrious racer who really wants to race that particular car to get as close as he can should he desire to do the work, and there is also the additional side benefit of making the average race weekend easier by removing the constant worry that the car could cross the scales too light.

The hope is that it won't encourage cheating. And I'm sure it won't as cheaters don't need encouragement, they do what they want regardless.

My car was given 100 pounds and it's not the gift I would really want either...it's hard to find 100 pounds on the car, and the weight I know that can come off, is all where I need weight to balance it.! Oh well, beggers can't be choosers and all that.

Better than nothing...

Also, the slower cars will advancen by the gains afforded them, but the faster cars should back up a touch....so the closing of the ranks is better than it first appears.

Again, it's not perfect, but it should result in more makes having a chance.

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by BMW RACER@Jan 21 2006, 02:57 PM
Let me get this straight. Stock E36 throttle body is approx 64mm in diameter. 2005 SCCA says "Too fast, gotta cut it down to 56mm" Now a year later they say "Still too fast, let's make that 27mm" 

They must be getting better dope in Topeka than Denver!

Maybe I'm the one on dope? (I'm sure you all will let me know)

27mm (1 1/16") is less than half the size of last years restrictor.

So now I must take my restricted E36 and drive around at half throttle!  Oh yea and sort it out by February.

I really don't want to sound like a whiner, but doesn't sound a little extreem?

PLEASE CONVINCE ME IT'S WORTH EVEN SPENDING THE TIME AND MONEY ON THIS.

[snapback]71532[/snapback]​

John...
An SIR isn't at all like the flat plate restrictors you are currently using. Your current restrictor will be removed.

The research and math has sized the restrictor to meet the target of ITS.

The SIR design is an optimized flow device. You may have seen them on the ALMP lite cars, as little funnel like things in the bodywork.

The science behind the design is that it won't affect the car except at the high end of the HP curve, when it merely lopes off the top.

The goal here is that some BMW guys will not have any idea it is on the engine. Others will lose 5 or 10 hp at the top. Guys who have decided to run M3 cams or whatever (rumours abound from within the BMW camp that the fast examples are doing this) will see their efforts negated.

I know the numbers sound awful, but you can't compare the two devices. Apples to grapes....

It sounds way more radical than it is.

 

[Doc Bro]

The bottom line is EVERYBODY knew it was coming. Any e36 team that couldn't see it coming was asleep at the wheel. The 350+ bucks is rough so is having it happen in the end of January- but what did we expect?

I think given the choice the weight savings and SIR was very fair. The SIR will pay for itself in time. Who wants a 3100lbs e36? And why are fully developed e36 teams complaining about $$$ anyway? It's not a cheap marque!!!

The SIR just saved a lot of new/underdeveloped teams an awful lot of heartache.
I'd much rather have a light underdeveloped car with an SIR in place that wouldn't do a thing anyway, rather than have an extra 300lbs always present and the same underdeveloped engine program. Remember not everyone starts with a 10/10 effort.

There were only two options....things were going to change it was inevitable.

Weight is cheap and easy initially- I agree........but just clipping off the high end hp seems like a more attractive option to me.

I'm surprised it wasn't weight as that seems to be more in line with the IT philosophy however I think the SIR shows some forward thinking on the part of those involved.

R

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Jan 21 2006, 01:19 PM
John...
An SIR isn't at all like the flat plate restrictors you are currently using. Your current restrictor will be removed.

The research and math has sized the restrictor to meet the target of ITS.

The SIR design is an optimized flow device. You may have seen them on the ALMP lite cars, as little funnel like things in the bodywork.

The science behind the design is that it won't affect the car except at the high end of the HP curve, when it merely lopes off the top.

The goal here is that some BMW guys will not have any idea it is on the engine. Others will lose 5 or 10 hp at the top. Guys who have decided to run M3 cams or whatever (rumours abound from within the BMW camp that the fast examples are doing this) will see their efforts negated.

I know the numbers sound awful, but you can't compare the two devices. Apples to grapes....

It sounds way more radical than it is.

[snapback]71534[/snapback]​

John, serious go get some data off the net before you step off the ledge. This is the best way to handle this and it will be the easiest fix for you.
If I were putting one on it would be a raetech engineering unit. I own no part of the company and don't have stock in these units.

 

[BMW RACER]

Jake & Joe.

Thanks for your patience and responces.

I knew I must have been missing something, I guess I was in shock!

Still, I've got to wonder, did they ever test this? Why do they decide now instead of the end of last season? I'm only a month away from the next race.

Thanks also for the Raetech link.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by BMW RACER@Jan 21 2006, 03:52 PM
Jake & Joe.

Thanks for your patience and responces.

I knew I must have been missing something, I guess I was in shock!

Still, I've got to wonder, did they ever test this? Why do they decide now instead of the end of last season? I'm only a month away from the next race.

Thanks also for the Raetech link.

[snapback]71545[/snapback]​

Its still likely when I come to visit that you will still kick my butt...

 

[xr4racer]

Jake, the 100 lbs may be doable on your car but wouldn't you rather have had 50 more added to the CRX Si and you only lose 50? That is my point with the Datsun 280z and 280zx they can lose 225lbs and 240 lbs respectively. I think it would have made more sense to add 100 or so to the BMW (with the SIR), RX-7, Quad 4 cars,etc and had them only try to lose 125 and 140, which might be possible ( but I doubt it).
As for your car my friends GSL-SE weighed 2205 without fluids and driver when he built it so you may have a chance with a 12A car to reach your weight.
I want to thank everyone, who I am sure worked on this whole project for many hours, for making the IT group a more level playing field. This is by far the most radical change in IT history. It is one I thought that would never come and they could just put on my tombstone either "not allowed because of rules creep" or "car is competitive as classified".

Matt

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by BMW RACER@Jan 21 2006, 05:52 PM
Jake & Joe.

.... Why do they decide now instead of the end of last season? I'm only a month away from the next race.

[snapback]71545[/snapback]​

John, you're welcome. Coming from you, I knew there was a disconnect. Your rep is pretty solid, and I know you're not an unreasonable guy.

Yeah, the timing sucks, and I'm sure it sucks to have to do anything, LOL. But it's obviously done for the good of the class, as well as the category as a whole.

Timing on this was two-fold. Most of the main work was done over the summer, with the final list ready in late summer. Some loose ends were tightened up over the fall, (the E36 being one of them)and the whole package needed to be discussed and approved by the CRB, and the BoD, then it needed to be published. I agree, that it took too long, but I have to tell you, it was a major fear of the ITAC that it wouln't make it out for this year at all, as the CRB and the BoD has a lot of things they need to attend to.

The mere fact that it is now reality signals that the major sea change is truly here.... the ship has actually changed it's course. We hope to retain the best elements of the old course, while piloting to a brighter future.

I am pleased that it has been approved, and I think that IT racing will be better now than perhaps ever.

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by xr4racer@Jan 21 2006, 07:28 PM
Jake, the 100 lbs may be doable on your car but wouldn't you rather have had 50 more added to the CRX Si and you only lose 50?  ......
Matt

[snapback]71548[/snapback]​

Sure! Who wouldn't!? But If the CRX got an additional 50, then so would every other car near it, like the 240SX, the Teg, as well as others that are currently "status quo", such as the Neons, the NX2000, and so on.

Thats a lot of cars, LOL. And there is the bigger picture to consider. We needed to use the 4 classes available to us as effectively as possible, but still not disturb the existing subscribers. (So no eliminating ITC, for example, to make room above ITS). Each classes performance envelope needs to make sense within the overall context.

In the end, the lines were drawn in an attempt to help the most, and force the least anguish.

Armchair quarterbacks will find better ways perhaps, but hopefully this will help the most while hurting the least. We'll deal with errors and omissions as part of the normal business should they arise.

 

[theenico]

First, I want to thank all those that worked hard on this.

Second... Has anyone seen my old Scirocco

Edit: See below

 

[Drew Aldred]

Nico,

Yes, I know where that car is. I sold it to Steve Nagle last season when trying to finish it was taking longer than I expected. (My fault, not the car's) It's painted up real pretty now, black with blue striping. He is not racing it, but he's holding it for his crew chief to race. I can find out the for sale status if you're interested. Motor's done, with new head and cam. Dash is out, etc so it's alot closer to being ready for Prod than IT.

Race cars never die, they just get different owners.

See ya at the Runoffs this year ????