SIR TEST RESULTS

Those damn Germans sure can build a car! B)
It's a shame that the SCCA likes the rice burners & GM better, look at today's T1 and yester year when the Audi's dominated Trans AM. But IMSA did the same to the Audi's after a few years. :rolleyes:
[/b]
Click to expand...


How do ya figure? The BMW was wrongly classed and is being corrected after 8 years or what ever? I don't think it's an anti german thing.
 
All I can say is i'm glad I sold my 325 cause you guys are gonna get hosed----no pun intended AJ formerly a 325 its driver .......
 
Mike, I am not sre which 240Z guys you are talking to but since I build engines for about every 240 in the PNW I think you are wrong. I don't know of a single one that isn't tired of seeing marginally prepared BMW's kicking their butts.[/b]
Click to expand...
Then you must know Jack and Lincoln Burns, right? I've raced pretty closely with them. Their downfall was crashing too much, not my car being an overdog. When they stayed on the track, we raced well. They usually won at PIR (their home track) and I usually won at SIR (my home track).

Skip Yocom? We've had a great time racing together when Skip has had his car running right, and during our long conversations he's never said anything to me at all about being frustrated with my car's preparedness level or his inability to keep up. In fact, he's specifically who I'm thinking of when I think about a Z driver coming over to shake my hand after a race. He's a great sport.

How about Ron Tanner? He hands it to me every time we race--pretty severely, in fact. The only time I recall managing to beat him was when he badly overcooked the chicane at PIR and couldn't get back in the race. Given that record, I can't imagine that he's complaining about my beating him all the time.

Looking at the 2005 results for the PNW region, here's how the ITS entries went:

Race #1: two 944s, though only one started
Race #2: five 944s
Race #3: three 944s
Race #4: three 944s
Race #5: two 944s
Race #6: Just one 944
Race #7: Two 944s

There's no BMWs there. In fact, there aren't any Z cars in the first place.

The story is the same for the 2005 season in the Oregon region:

Race #1: A 240Z beat an RX-7.
Race #2: Only one 240Z
Race #3: A 240Z beat an BMW. (But I'm pretty sure this BMW is an E30.) From 3rd place, it's a 944, two Z cars in a row, and another 944.
Race #4: Five 240Z cars, no other marques
Race #5: Just one ITS car. It's a Z.
Race #6: One 240Z.
Race #7: A single 240Z.
Race #8: Only one 944.
Race #9: A Mazda RX7. A 944 entered, but DNS.

There's only one BMW car, and it finished behind a 240Z. Will's best time in his E30 was about 0.900 seconds slower than the Z car. No other BMWs showed up all year.

Who is it that you're thinking of, Joe?

The fact that 240z's are 35 years old doesn't make them a bad car and I don't understand your elitist attitude toward them. [/b]
Click to expand...
Nope. It just makes 'em old cars.

You are beating cars that have 5 to 8 k in an engine every 2nd year. These cars have 2500 dollar exhaust system and run 800 bucks worth of new tires[/b]
Click to expand...
My last engine was right in the middle of that range, and my tyre budget is within 10%. I think I got four races out of a set last year -- on my rains.

This adjustment was not done because Mike B. owns a BMW, it was done tobring balance back to one of the best classes in SCCA. You are lucky in the fact that since you race with ICSCC and you can always just run your car in CP or DP and not change a thing.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Indeed, I am fortunate for that. I'll probably end up in RS and SPM this year instead of ITS and CP.
 
Mike,

Go through and read your post again. Just about every sentence has "I" in it. All you seem concerned about is how it impacts you, and how you have 'been cheated'. [/b]
Click to expand...

Bill, go re-read the post to which I was responding. Of course my response has "I" in it often; someone asked the opinion of a 325 driver, and I provided it. The post I was responding to specifically asked how BMW drivers wouldn't feel cheated. And so it follows that came up, too.

Someone asked about our side of the coin, and I engaged them, trying to build understanding. How will your contributions to the thread help build that understanding?

You called my previous post ascerbic. Hardly.[/b]
Click to expand...
Almost every sentence in your post has "you" in it. You've gone almost completely ad hominem. The rule issue isn't about me, so I can't figure out why you keep telling me about myself.

You also think it was rude that I suggest that you need to further develop the driver.[/b]
Click to expand...
Nope. I wrote that it was rude for you to posit, without basis, that I wanted to run at the front without putting time or money into the driver. Check the post yourself -- it's right there.
 
Then you must know Jack and Lincoln Burns, right? I've raced pretty closely with them. Their downfall was crashing too much, not my car being an overdog. When they stayed on the track, we raced well. They usually won at PIR (their home track) and I usually won at SIR (my home track).

Skip Yocom? We've had a great time racing together when Skip has had his car running right, and during our long conversations he's never said anything to me at all about being frustrated with my car's preparedness level or his inability to keep up. In fact, he's specifically who I'm thinking of when I think about a Z driver coming over to shake my hand after a race. He's a great sport.

How about Ron Tanner? He hands it to me every time we race--pretty severely, in fact. The only time I recall managing to beat him was when he badly overcooked the chicane at PIR and couldn't get back in the race. Given that record, I can't imagine that he's complaining about my beating him all the time.

Looking at the 2005 results for the PNW region, here's how the ITS entries went:

Race #1: two 944s, though only one started
Race #2: five 944s
Race #3: three 944s
Race #4: three 944s
Race #5: two 944s
Race #6: Just one 944
Race #7: Two 944s

There's no BMWs there. In fact, there aren't any Z cars in the first place.

The story is the same for the 2005 season in the Oregon region:

Race #1: A 240Z beat an RX-7.
Race #2: Only one 240Z
Race #3: A 240Z beat an BMW. (But I'm pretty sure this BMW is an E30.) From 3rd place, it's a 944, two Z cars in a row, and another 944.
Race #4: Five 240Z cars, no other marques
Race #5: Just one ITS car. It's a Z.
Race #6: One 240Z.
Race #7: A single 240Z.
Race #8: Only one 944.
Race #9: A Mazda RX7. A 944 entered, but DNS.

There's only one BMW car, and it finished behind a 240Z. Will's best time in his E30 was about 0.900 seconds slower than the Z car. No other BMWs showed up all year.

Who is it that you're thinking of, Joe?
Nope. It just makes 'em old cars.
My last engine was right in the middle of that range, and my tyre budget is within 10%. I think I got four races out of a set last year -- on my rains.

Indeed, I am fortunate for that. I'll probably end up in RS and SPM this year instead of ITS and CP.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Mike, I know every one of those cars considering I built every engine in them, I built both of the Burns cars from the ground up, I have Skips car in my shop and Tanners new engine on the bench. BTW Skip is to good a sport to come over and say anything one way or another. Your car is really the least of anyone's issues but it will become one should you decide to actually build the thing to it's fullest. Why do you think it's OK for you to compete with cars that are fully prepped in an underdeveloped car?


The point I think you miss is this adjustment is not about you. The timing has nothing to do with you. The fact that you don't see a problem with the car is really not my problem. I won't respond any further here because I don't want to make this about you. This is about a car that was misclassed in the beginning and nothing more. This is also a change in a rule no different than any other adjustment and while the timing may suck for you SCCA is a national club and their are races going on year round so somebody would have hated the timing no matter what.
 
This is also a change in a rule no different than any other adjustment and while the timing may suck for you SCCA is a national club and their are races going on year round so somebody would have hated the timing no matter what.
[/b]
Click to expand...

incorrect. if the rule change had put forth a proper lead time for compliance and been effective with the start of a new year, then there could have been no complaints about the timing.

a few weeks of lead time for a major change that occurs mid-year? heck yeah there will be folks hating the timing.
 
....Indeed, I am fortunate for that. I'll probably end up in RS and SPM this year instead of ITS and CP.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Mike, I am curious, why?

Because the car will, in theory, be required to be a top prep car to run at the front?

Or, you don't have the (choose one or all) the time, the money, the inclination to acheive the top prep level and you don't like running anywhere but the front?

Or you think the whole thing is unfair to the entire class and won't participate ?

Or, ?????

Not understanding this.....

I really want to understand the reasoning behind such a decision.
 
:unsure:
Back to the topic heading "RESULTS" . ITAC and CRB it is now March 13. Updates? Delays? More tests? Conclusions? Time frame? New Effective date? Something? Anything?


Greg
 
Can you say with 100% confidence that it was at least 15hp as a fact? There are more factors than just hp. I think Chris makes many valid points. At some tracks horsepower makes a big difference and other tracks it isn't a big factor. A 100% driver with a 80% car can beat a 90% driver with a 100% car at this level. We should make this a claimer class like in karting.

I hope all of this works itself out for the best - so far it seems like a disaster. Time will tell.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I was skimming back trying to get a reference for the 13th date, and I came across this.

A "claimer class"?

How do you determine pricing? And what if, for example, a guy "claims" a car...and then the seller waits an event or two, and protests the new owner, and the car is found to be illegal?

Messssy.......

Regarding the results, I imagine that the 3/20 issue of Fastrack will have something, but at this point we on the ITAC don't know either. I would hope that the date is pushed back, but thats just my opinion.
 
Regarding the results, I imagine that the 3/20 issue of Fastrack will have something, but at this point we on the ITAC don't know either. I would hope that the date is pushed back, but thats just my opinion. [/b]
Click to expand...

Hell I hope they are like the US Congress & Senate, take all damn year :happy204: . I'm ready to run 05 configuration! :D If they take long enough, maybe all the other ITS guys will forget about it. B)
 
Regarding the results, I imagine that the 3/20 issue of Fastrack will have something, but at this point we on the ITAC don't know either. I would hope that the date is pushed back, but thats just my opinion.
[/b]
Click to expand...

<_< Jake, are we to assume that the ITAC gave its recommendations to the CRB???? If so where is the test results that were promised. I highly doubt that the Fastrack issue will go into detail about the tests. Something sure does smell fishy. Let's go back to when you were covering these tests..........from what you promised reading Fastrack to get the decision is very misleading.

Greg
 
Well, I don't have the results, so therefore can't release the results and their conclusions.

I was present for some of the tests that have occurred, but not all. I have heard third hand about further possible tests being conducted, but again, I don't know the whole picture. I'd like to lay out the whole picture for you, but I just don't have the picture to lay out, and I am sure you can understand that I'm not in the position to release incomplete information.

I too am anxious to see the results.
 
... A "claimer class"? ...[/b]
Click to expand...
Lore has it that, back when Showroom Stock had a claim rule in the '70s, a guy was winning with a Pinto. It got claimed and, in retaliation, he is said to have buttonholed the new owner and carefully explained that he knew every single illegal part on the car and that if he got beat, he was going to protest one part - and only one part - at each race, until the new guy caught a clue.

K
 
Lore has it that, back when Showroom Stock had a claim rule in the '70s, a guy was winning with a Pinto. It got claimed and, in retaliation, he is said to have buttonholed the new owner and carefully explained that he knew every single illegal part on the car and that if he got beat, he was going to protest one part - and only one part - at each race, until the new guy caught a clue.

K
[/b]
Click to expand...


And what would a guy with a 510 do with a pinto engine?? :P

Claimer classes are best when everyone uses the same engine, for example circle track modifieds that all run small block chevy's. I knew of a guy that tried a different strategy, he gave up the plentiful parts of the chevy for more cubes in a 500 cube caddie. He always said, "If I finish top five go ahead and claim me, then figure out how to not make it a boat anchor"

James
 
It was a little before I started going to SCCA races but it's my understanding that under the old SS rules, you claimed the ENTIRE CAR.

K
 
It was a little before I started going to SCCA races but it's my understanding that under the old SS rules, you claimed the ENTIRE CAR.

K [/b]
Click to expand...

That is correct... the claim amount was based on the MSRP for each car, with an adder to allow for required safety equipment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top