SIR TEST RESULTS
- Thread starter dj10
- Start date
seckerich
New member
Actually you should kiss their collective a---- as they have bent over backwards to give the BMW a break. Run it through the process and give it the lead and quit this BS. It kills me that the CRB lacks the balls to get this right. It should have never been an either-or decision in the first place. You only got the weight you have because the board was suckered in the first place to allow the vanos at the same weight and then would not correct it because of the limit on ballast rule. Nasa needs people like you--GOOOOOOO
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
WOW! What an awesome post!!!
Ron Earp
Administrator
This has been mentioned numerous times and is incredibly true. Why does this car get special treatment? Because the BMW owners complain about the weight and that the car is
unraceable"? BS.
The car should be treated like everything else in IT and run through the process, letting it fall where it may. If it gets lead and is unracable, too bad. Get another car, make do and adapt, or take it BMWCCA. I haven't run my JH, it might not be competitive at all, but the neither the ITAC or the GCR guarantees that it will be competitive and I don't expect them to. You take your pick, take your chances, and make the best of it.
I think the ITAC shouldn't have given the choice to the CRB. The CRB, with accepting so many other adjustments and classifications on other cars from the ITAC, would have had to accept the BMW weight recommendation or they would appear biased. Wait....
R
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
There is still more testing to be done to verify the exact sizing. It's in the CRB's hands now to complete the data collection and determine either to implement the SIR or to correct the weight. 1 month until April 1. I am not sure how giving you any info out of context before all of it comes in is helpful to anyone.
AB
I would say this means that while some of the tests are done, the testing is not completed. I think it is reasonable to assume that the ITAC is reluctant to give out partial information. You can't do a test and only use selected bits of the sample group. It appears the ITAC and the CRB are waiting for ALL the samples to be gathered before reaching a conclusion. That does not mean that the results thus far are inconclusive, it means they are incomplete. There is a difference.
John
John
AB,I thought things were going to be hashed out on MONDAY. Tomorrow is March 1. I bet you have been working on getting your miata ready, the BMW guys are in limbo. I don't want to argue, but maybe this should be work inprogress for next year. Now, back to the PROCESS. What WHP NUMBERS are you using to come up with this? The longer you wait car counts will be affected. You can act like you don't care if people leave, but you should. I was at VIR two weeks ago at a NASA wevent. It was the biggest turnout they ever had. Why is that? I'm not saying it is your fault at all, but recognize what is going on. NASA is building credibility. At the rate you are going part of the season will be run with different restrictions for the BMW. Do you want that? I think everyone has been very patient over the last two weeks.
Greg
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Guys, this is far from simple. Even the discussions are not simple within the ITAC, and then you add the CRB...and the bottom line is, sadly, that the data is not complete.
Trust me when I tell you that I have never worked harder for something so removed from my world, LOL...of course, the health of IT is important to me, so I felt it was extremely important to fully understand the real world implications and affects the SIR could and would have, before moving forward. And moving forward means committing to the 27...or a 25 or a 35, or another flat plate restrictor or adding weight.
The commitees do not wish to visit this again. So this is the time to do it and get it right.
As Andy said,
-The CRB is continuing to get some final peices of the puzzle
-They know our (the ITACs) views at this point in time
-They will decide the final action, and the timeline.
I honestly will know what happens when you know what happens...it has not been decided, nor even hinted at.
You E36 guys should be very thankful to the guys who have stepped up and put their cars through days of dyno runs...I wish I could name names, but I can't. One guy in particular has had his car on the rollers for over 14 hours..thanks!
Right now, you guys can go race and enjoy. Whatever the final outcome, I am sure that you will have the resources and time needed to implement it. If that's not good enough, and you want to go race with another sanctioning body, fine...but don't claim you were run off.
Trust me when I tell you that I have never worked harder for something so removed from my world, LOL...of course, the health of IT is important to me, so I felt it was extremely important to fully understand the real world implications and affects the SIR could and would have, before moving forward. And moving forward means committing to the 27...or a 25 or a 35, or another flat plate restrictor or adding weight.
The commitees do not wish to visit this again. So this is the time to do it and get it right.
As Andy said,
-The CRB is continuing to get some final peices of the puzzle
-They know our (the ITACs) views at this point in time
-They will decide the final action, and the timeline.
I honestly will know what happens when you know what happens...it has not been decided, nor even hinted at.
You E36 guys should be very thankful to the guys who have stepped up and put their cars through days of dyno runs...I wish I could name names, but I can't. One guy in particular has had his car on the rollers for over 14 hours..thanks!
Right now, you guys can go race and enjoy. Whatever the final outcome, I am sure that you will have the resources and time needed to implement it. If that's not good enough, and you want to go race with another sanctioning body, fine...but don't claim you were run off.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I thought things were going to be hashed out on MONDAY. Tomorrow is March 1. I bet you have been working on getting your miata ready, the BMW guys are in limbo. .
Greg
[/b]
hey Greg...I don't know if Andy has been working on his car or not, but I can tell you this...the ONLY work I have had time to do has been on the ITAC and E36 issues. Since September, this work has accounted for fully 25% of my 8 days off. How many hours have I spent prepping MY car in the past few months? Zero. The holidays and two days at the ARRCs to observe account for all the rest of my days off.
I know, thats what I signed up for, and it's fine. And I appreciate your point...but I get a little annoyed when things like that are said. Andy, nor the ITAC or the CRB are putting their own agendas first.
This whole restrictor part was added to the PCA language by the CRB, and the SIR recommendation was by the CRB, of course, as they are the actual rulemakers. but the ITAC feels VERY strongly about the process, and has bent over backwards to make sure that whatever happens is fair, and fits the process, and the philosophy of the category. The E36 just happens to be the model name of a car that has qualities that have become troublesome vis a vis the rest of the class.
Again, this is all about the process. The ITAC and the CRB are working hard and sacrificing their time, their programs so that all cars fit the process to the greatest extent reasonable.
Ron Earp
Administrator
It's sure not because the ITAC or CRB made rules so your JH wasn't competitive, was it?How many people run JH's in ITS? How many run BMW 325's?
[/b]
Doesn't matter if there is one, or one hundred.
The car has more hp stock than any other ITS car save the Supra, has great brakes, great suspension, and is a fantastic track car platform. If any car should run through the process and take what is given, this is it. It doesn't need allowances made for poor brakes, lack of power, bad chassis design, or difficult development. The mistake was made when the car was simply classed at too light of a weight and nobody wants to have weight added.
Be interesting to see what the recommendation is after all the data collection.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Pretty good first post, John.
Welcome!
We all get along just fine at the track, don't let this silliness scare you in any way.
Bill Miller
New member
Wow dj, the number of examples of a given car that are raced, should influence policy decisions. Yeah, I'm ok w/ that.
dj10
New member
Is this post from 1st hand knowledge or is this just an a assumption on your part? THERE IS A DIFFERNECE.
Never ass u me anything.
I could give a rats ass about anything anyone has to say on anything but pure data of facts that is realevant to the SIR's being tested. This is why I'm here PERIOD.
Sure we are thankful for the hard work these people are putting in but the guy with the BMW and dyno is benefiting from this as he should. But lets not lose site of a couple of things. 1. the only reason the RP did not work is because of the beveling of the spacer plate. Remove the spacer plate or not allow the beveling of it and it would work. We would be completely screwed if we would have had to work out this SIR BS our selves. We (BMW) are the test rats for the future SCCA restrictions on the other classes. A smaller RP would have worked and been a hell of a lot cheaper.
These posts are open to attacks from some people. Instead of opinions and assumptions, lets stay with facts.
Is this post from 1st hand knowledge or is this just an a assumption on your part? THERE IS A DIFFERNECE.
Never ass u me anything.
I could give a rats ass about anything anyone has to say on anything but pure data of facts that is realevant to the SIR's being tested. This is why I'm here PERIOD.
Sure we are thankful for the hard work these people are putting in but the guy with the BMW and dyno is benefiting from this as he should. But lets not lose site of a couple of things. 1. the only reason the RP did not work is because of the beveling of the spacer plate. Remove the spacer plate or not allow the beveling of it and it would work. We would be completely screwed if we would have had to work out this SIR BS our selves. We (BMW) are the test rats for the future SCCA restrictions on the other classes. A smaller RP would have worked and been a hell of a lot cheaper.
These posts are open to attacks from some people. Instead of opinions and assumptions, lets stay with facts.
[/b]
If you notice my wording such as "I would say","I think" and "It appears ", you can answer your own first question. While I haven't been present for any of these tests, I have talked to two "tuners" who have done testing in the last two weeks on e36's with 27mm SIR's. One was MoTec equipped, one was not. Based on a combination of this data and the postings from the ITAC, I arrived at a reasonable deduction. Without this "reason", it would have only been an assumption. That deduction is the same thing they have said repeatedly. The testing is/was incomplete at that time.
Yes, the initial time period was too short for implementation. Yes, there could/should have been more thorough testing prior to the intial rule change. Yes, the time period has been backed up to allow the time for testing(both individuals, and SCCA) I hope you have written the CRB about this already??? Or are you just here talking about it? The CRB is who put the rule into place, not the ITAC.
John
p.s. yelling isn't necessary...
Ron Earp
Administrator
I hope you have written the CRB about this already??? Or are you just here talking about it? The CRB is who put the rule into place, not the ITAC.
[/b]
I am writing one right now. I agree with you, the CRB put the rule in place. But, while I feel the ITAC does a great job I think the ITAC made a mistake in giving the CRB a choice. They should have justified the weight process as being consistent with every other car in class and then the CRB would have had to go with the recommendation. If the CRB rejected the recommendation then they were playing politics and showing their true colors, blue and white with a black border.
Ron
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Make no mistake, just because the SIR was an option in the 2005 recommendation to the CRB doesn't make it some sort if error. The CRB has restrictors in their 'quiver' based on the PCA language in the ITCS. Just because we mentioned it, doesn't mean it was then an option when it wouldn't have been before. They went with it because they thought it was the best decision at the time.
We have received member input on this. Here is what it looks like:
- Give us the weight, I don't want to be restricted
- Give us a properly sized SIR because the car will be undriveable at 3150-3200
- Give everyone in ITS an SIR
- Keep things as they were in 2005
- Remove the restrictions from the E36 and restrict the RX-7
- Some people think weight won't slow the cars, it will just wear stuff out faster
- Some people think the SIR will cripple the car and make it worth nothing
- Request of a full revamp of the ITAC
- Some people want the car out of ITS altogether
While the ITAC is virtually out of the process now (meaning it is in the hands of the CR
, I believe that the members of the CRB will do what they think is right for it's members - no matter what you drive.AB
Ron Earp
Administrator
DoubleD, I'm not on the ITAC and certainly don't try to defend them. I think they did a nice job over the last year or so with trying to make IT a level playing field and correcting wrongs. IMHO the system of rules authorization is broken - why does something from the ITAC require approval from a board that is completely uninterested in IT racing? Let them govern their fiefdom of aging Britsh Prod cars and leave us alone.
R