Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Your not wrong Matt. That would be a perfect solution in a perfect world. It just may not be practical at this point.
AB
SIR TEST RESULTS
- Thread starter dj10
- Start date
Your not wrong Matt. That would be a perfect solution in a perfect world. It just may not be practical at this point.
AB
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
AB,
I talked about the end result of HP of the BMW compared to the RX7. Showed the weight differences and brought up the question of what type of dyno used to measure 182whp you claim that an RX7 is capable of. Are you comparing apples to apples. I have a feeling YOU are not. That's right you. You never addressed different readings from dynos,DJ has been asking. Next an CLayton????? Ron makes a great poiunt. Why not use comparable info. The way you are condoning the test info it can interpretted differently. Even, if you hit the goal , how can you give the BMW less power than an RX7 but more weiht?AB, you will not tire me. You are tring to confuse the issue. Just get the info!!!!!!!! You love those little faces, huh.
Greg
[/b]
<My babbling response deleted. Can't seem to get through>
The goal is to have the BMW at 220chp. That is in the range of the RX-7 - within any sort of error.
Same crank and wheel hp for the BMW and RX-7...why is the BMW 'heavy'? If they are the same hp, do you agree or disagree that the BMW is still as good as the RX-7?
As far as the testing, we will use comparable info, we are just accepting it all at the moment.
I am not trying to confuse the issue - I am just condoning testing by anyone. Trust me, the CRB isn't so foolish as to exclusively use info from different dynos to make a decision.
Wow. 3150lb minimum would have been sooo much easier.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
True, but read the last paragraph on the second page of the ITCS. Many BMW drivers have called that weight 'extreme'. I can only surmise that the CRB was trying to have the best of both worlds.
AB
AB
dj10
New member
AB, the RX7 is lighter, easier on tyres, has as good of brakes as my BMW, handles slightly better and my BMW has slightly more torque (where the hell you got 180 ft lbs. of torque I'm look at my dyno sheet?) 180 is a false figure.
Advantage E30 (200# lighter) & RX7.
At 3150# I will not be racing SCCA! Then I would thank them for making my BMW worth zilch point shit (almost what it worth now) after I sent all kinds of $ to upgrade everything in the car.
We need to focus on the problem without destroying an entire make of car, no matter what make it is. I would be as upset if this was the RX7 going through this BS.
All I asked for was an opinion on they thought the test went and we get absolutely nothing. This is a little like masturbation with out the payoff.
dj
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
NOT FALSE. Maybe Bruce Shafer would care to comment on my torque claims? Care to tell us your builder, your prep level, and your numbers? (Not Bruce, DJ.) I don't mind people disputing stuff, but bring something to the table.
"almost what it is worth now"...what are we to make of that statement? You think the E36 is an underdog now? HA!
And that is what is happening.
All I asked for was an opinion on they thought the test went and we get absolutely nothing. This is a little like masturbation with out the payoff.
dj [/b]
Then don't grab it if you know you won't be able to finish. Wait until all the info is in and you can do whatever you want to yourself...
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
AB & ask Bruce what dyno he used for his figures. Your plate was filled if you remember (ask Darin). Honestly, from what I'm seeing we will be the underdogs. But it all depends on what this SIR will do, or not do.
dj [/b]
I hope he chimes in. I am looking at his sheet.
What are you seeing? When the CRB gets the BMW to 220chp or 180whp (dynojet), I fail to see them as an...
The torque numbers are so huge, the powercurve so flat, the gearing so good, the brakes are awesome, and the chassis more than acceptable...it will still be a GREAT car for ITS.
dj10
New member
I hope he chimes in. I am looking at his sheet.
What are you seeing? When the CRB gets the BMW to 220chp or 180whp (dynojet), I fail to see them as an...
The torque numbers are so huge, the powercurve so flat, the gearing so good, the brakes are awesome, and the chassis more than acceptable...it will still be a GREAT car for ITS.
[/b]
You should be a BMW salesman!
Hell AB you love the BMW so much why aren't you racing them?!! From what you just wrote, why the hell should anyone race a RX7? 
With the 200# gift to the E30 and this gift of less hp & torque for us. You are more confident that me. 
Well I'm not worried my membership & comp license is up in June, we should know something by then.....maybe.;~)dj
AB,
Don't ge me this perfect world shit. The SCCA should have the means and the know how to perform the test. We are not talking about thousands of dollars, and if we were the SCCA could/should do it. The Club members are paying for the ProRacing, how about some of that money come back to the club level. Some guys are spending $50,000 on cars to race. Even years ago SpeedSource wanted $36,000 for an ITS RX7. If you make rules don't act like its impossible to run tests to prove them. AB, is the SCCA a nickle and dime operation. The SCCA has the ability to reach out to many resources. The engine dyno question is a great one. Hell, put the other competitive car brands on it to show data. You form your opinions from what ever data you have, but in a PERFECT world we would have the apple to apple comparision . Don't act like this is impossible. Are you afraid that you are wrong?
Greg
AB,If they have the same HP shouldn't they weight the same ?
Joe Harlan
New member
Greg,
I wouldn't touch this with a 10 inch... errrrr...........I mean a 10 ft. pole
[/b]
Now that's funny cause if you had a 10 inch errr 10 ft pole you wouldn't feel the need to own a beamer......
zracre
New member
AB,
Don't ge me this perfect world shit. The SCCA should have the means and the know how to perform the test. We are not talking about thousands of dollars, and if we were the SCCA could/should do it. The Club members are paying for the ProRacing, how about some of that money come back to the club level. Some guys are spending $50,000 on cars to race. Even years ago SpeedSource wanted $36,000 for an ITS RX7. If you make rules don't act like its impossible to run tests to prove them. AB, is the SCCA a nickle and dime operation. The SCCA has the ability to reach out to many resources. The engine dyno question is a great one. Hell, put the other competitive car brands on it to show data. You form your opinions from what ever data you have, but in a PERFECT world we would have the apple to apple comparision . Don't act like this is impossible. Are you afraid that you are wrong?
Greg
If they have the same HP shouldn't they weight the same ?
[/b]
good point...we pay for it...why skimp on dyno time...im sure thee are plenty of members willing to offer up their ride for dyno tuning time...IT is a bigger force than most national classes...
steve s
New member
now why couldn't our club have done this testing b4 doing the comp. adjustment ???
they could have gotten the top 5 manufacturer cars from the ARRC and done some testing with them.
that is the top 5 bmw
top 5 rx7
top 5 nissans
etc . i am sure some of them would glad for the dyno time.since the top guys were taken apart to some degree and all found to be legal they would be the best choice for this test ???
now if any camp decides not to subject their car to this testing then don't complain about the results being flawed.
they could have gotten the top 5 manufacturer cars from the ARRC and done some testing with them.
that is the top 5 bmw
top 5 rx7
top 5 nissans
etc . i am sure some of them would glad for the dyno time.since the top guys were taken apart to some degree and all found to be legal they would be the best choice for this test ???
now if any camp decides not to subject their car to this testing then don't complain about the results being flawed.
Matt Rowe
New member
No good deed goes unpunished. The biggest screw-ups start with the best of intentions?
The FIRST thing I learned as a Steward was that anytime you think of bending the rules or treating one group differently to make them happy you're going to regret it. As nice an idea as the SIR might be, I'd hate to be the ITAC, CRB or BMW owner right now and have to deal with all of this crap. The process derived weight sounds more and more like the better choice. Then it would have been up to the BMW owners to prove their motors weren't that strong as opposed to the ITAC and CRB proving the SIR works as intended.
Meanwhile, we still have issues with rules interpretation, ECU's, and bringing in new faster cars. But I wonder how much of that is going to get done while all of this effort is being put into a single car. While the effort is great, couldn't it be better spent elsewhere?
Fastfred92
New member
Where did the 182 whp # for the RX7 come from??? what level of prep are we talking here? Huffmasters car ??? I may be wrong but I suspect a decent prep but not motec type RX7.....
dj10
New member
Matt, As was stated in a previous post all testing should have been completed before the comp adjustment was implemented. I am a BMW owner and last year was my 1st year back in 5 years. Never did I think that this class or this car was so much of a concern or I would have gone to another class! I hate like hell to even think I would have to drive around with another 300# and as a matter of fact I WON'T! I can run NASA at 14.5 rwhp/Weight without being fat. To me the SIR could be the answer but it's flawed right now and with the lack of info from the testing I'm having a hard time knowing who I can trust
Matt, thanks to you and all the other workers who have helped us over the years, we couldn't do it without people like you.
dj