SIR testing?

The interesting thing is that both sides have very legitimate points but that is where the similarity ends:

1. The e36 had not gone through "the process" and that is unarguable....

2. That fact is also not Andy or Jake or anyone else's fault.

Can we get agreement on these two points?
Next,

The SCCA and the ITAC have tried in some way to level the playing field......agreed?

They propsed several options and the CRB went with the SIR.....agreed?

All parties involoved were in a system of checks and balances, meaning it was a peer reviewed process and not a unilateral decision. Information was collected for/against adjustment of the e36......agreed?

The e36 boys feel there is a conspiracy or that they are funding the SCCA's experiment....agreed?
The crux of the matter is that there is no e36 guys that can back up there stance with facts yet- only conjecture.....and that is where most of us see a problem with how you guys are going about it. You will not get a sympathetic ear with this playbook. Just look at the facts and reverse the roles.....it's right there in front of you.

Pitch in, team up and PROVE that it was a mistake. Instead you're whining and letting Andy do they dyno work for you. How cowardly. You (generically) attack him and he still goes to bat for you to make sure they (ITAC/CRB) got it right!!

WOW.

If he's right there should be a whole bunch of apologies and atta boy's.

Let's not forget this is a volunteer thing. Being lambasted for a hobby stinks.

R
And YES I DRIVE A BMW!!
[/b]
Click to expand...

Doc,
The SCCA and the ITAC have tried in some way to level the playing field......agreed? YES
They propsed several options and the CRB went with the SIR.....agreed? YES
The e36 boys feel there is a conspiracy NO or that they are funding the SCCA's experiment....agreed? YES
Pitch in, team up and PROVE that it was a mistake. THEY ALREADY KNOW IT WAS A MISTAKE BY RAISING THE SIR SIZE FROM 27 MM TO 29 MM.
2. That fact is also not Andy or Jake or anyone else's fault. CORRECT
Doc, this is SCCA's tech dept problem, not AB's or anyone else's. All we want is some guarantee that we won't be chasing our tails some 3 months into the racing season. Is this too much of a unreasonable request?
Again, other that a little sarcasm I have and never will condon or be apart of personal attacks. :cavallo:
 
DJ, I agree the SIR was ill-conceived (by the CRB), ill planned, apparently ill-tested although still not clear on that, and certainly poorly timed.

So, how about 250 lbs? Would you take that, no bee-yatching allowed?
 
Doc, this is SCCA's tech dept problem, not AB's or anyone else's. All we want is some guarantee that we won't be chasing our tails some 3 months into the racing season. Is this too much of a unreasonable request?
Again, other that a little sarcasm I have and never will condon or be apart of personal attacks. :cavallo:
[/b]
Click to expand...


DJ,
I'm on both sides on this and I appreciate your position. I clearly see where the frustration lies. I do see the frustration of the other ITS marques too.

I have't heard that the SIR was changing size other than from a BMW vendor. I may be wrong I'm unsure. If it is I understand that that would further reinforce your stance!!

Correct me but I thought that RAETech would reimburse if the SIR did change size?

My only point was that AB has agreed to the testing while the opposite camp has said I'm not spending the money to test etc, etc.....

You must agree to the average lurker it sure looks like Andy has gone very far to insure the integrity of the decision, and for that I feel he should be applauded. That's the type of attitude we want in our sport and in our leadership. Let's be patient and see what the testing from both sides reveals.

Other's have in fact commented that they thought it was a conspiracy...if not here then on bimmerforums or somewhere- I read it.

R
 
DJ, I agree the SIR was ill-conceived (by the CRB), ill planned, apparently ill-tested although still not clear on that, and certainly poorly timed.

So, how about 250 lbs? Would you take that, no bee-yatching allowed?
[/b]
Click to expand...

GIVE ME SIR OR GIVE ME DEATH! :cavallo: :D
 
i started to write a big long post to respond to some of the bs in the last two pages of this thread, but then realized i was just would be repeating the same points several of us have tried to make many times already.

the thread in the other bmw forum was just plain stupid. it does not reflect the attitudes or ideas of the majority of the scca bmw drivers.

if only scca would kick us out of its. that would be awesome. make a new class above its and put us in it. get us away from all this whining... :lol:
 
DJ,
I'm on both sides on this and I appreciate your position. I clearly see where the frustration lies. I do see the frustration of the other ITS marques too.

I have't heard that the SIR was changing size other than from a BMW vendor. I may be wrong I'm unsure. If it is I understand that that would further reinforce your stance!!

Correct me but I thought that RAETech would reimburse if the SIR did change size?

My only point was that AB has agreed to the testing while the opposite camp has said I'm not spending the money to test etc, etc.....

You must agree to the average lurker it sure looks like Andy has gone very far to insure the integrity of the decision, and for that I feel he should be applauded. That's the type of attitude we want in our sport and in our leadership. Let's be patient and see what the testing from both sides reveals.

Other's have in fact commented that they thought it was a conspiracy...if not here then on bimmerforums or somewhere- I read it.
R
[/b]
Click to expand...


Doc, you seem like so many people here, an intelligent person. Please don't get caught up in the conspiracy theory's in this forum or others. I assure you that no rational person thinks everyone in the SCCA is out to get anyone who owns a E36 325. Yea were going to bust AB's balls some.B) This is not meant to be mean spirited and as for me, I will tease anyone I can if I get the chance. :birra:

Raetech did say he would swap any incorrect SIR. At least that is what the post said. I've already shown that this could be expensive to tune your car again, and if the SIR isn't right, then again. If my car wasn't in 1000 pieces I'd let someone use my car for testing.
We will get through this I am sure, just have some patience. In some cases redundancy is good but not in this case.
On the test itself, we will need to know the parameters.
dj
 
The rhetoric and fighting on this board really mitigates its value.

Was the size truly increased? How would we ever find out for sure? Raetech doesn't list sizes bigger than 27mm in their catalog. Have they developed a correctly sized part to match the rest of the BMW plumbing, that doesn't further reduce the airflow after the SIR mouth?

Even stipulating that the changes are necessary, changing so close to the start of the season (twice?) and doing it two years in a row is very hard to like.
 
Guys,

Making adjustments are always difficult, especially in the eyes of the people be adjusted. The best thing you can do is accept that an adjustment will be made and work hard to make sure that it is correct for the class. The Boards were responding to the needs of the class as a whole. They recognized that in their attempt to look after the class as a whole they put the BMW guys in a disadvantageous position. The Boards are now trying to correct that. Thank them! Keep your eye on the SCCA web site in order to know what is going on.

I will build the SIR determined to be correct by the CRB and exchange it with the 27 mm SIRs already purchased. I am the one who should be complaining.

Dave Finch
 
Has the size truly increased? How would we ever find out for sure? Raetech doesn't list sizes bigger than 27mm in their catalog. Have they developed a correctly sized part to match the rest of the BMW plumbing, that doesn't further reduce the airflow after the SIR mouth?

Even stipulating that the changes are necessary, changing so close to the start of the season (twice?) and doing it two years in a row is very hard to like.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Mike, I'm in the same boat as you. 1st take a deep breath and relax. :D Then look at post #23. Don't worry I'm sure things will get rectified pertaining what Raetech has and will get for the SIR. As far as the plumbing goes do a search for silicone hose. I found many sizes and shapes that would fit the intake system of our E36's. I suggest a K&N Filter which should fit easily. You seem unsure of your self when trying to make this work, if so I suggest a pro. I am sure they could fit this up with very little trouble and little expense. If I find anything out I'll post it ASAP.
BTW, Thanks Dave for the info.
dj
 
The rhetoric and fighting on this board really mitigates its value.

Was the size truly increased? How would we ever find out for sure? Raetech doesn't list sizes bigger than 27mm in their catalog. Have they developed a correctly sized part to match the rest of the BMW plumbing, that doesn't further reduce the airflow after the SIR mouth?

Even stipulating that the changes are necessary, changing so close to the start of the season (twice?) and doing it two years in a row is very hard to like.
[/b]
Click to expand...
No nothing official, I believe Darin posted in the rules section with actual info from the CRB.
 
yup, see darin's post in the r&r section
1/ new date is april fools day
2/ no change in restrictor size
3/ some crb testing this weekend
 
:unsure: With the testing that will be taken place this weekend can we get an idea what has been done to the car, engine performance wise. Is it possible also to see the before and after from this test. This kind of info could and will help BMW owns have direction and feel better about the situation. I know this sounds stupid, but can we make sure everything on the test cars are legal( Cams especailly) To help validate the test, it would be nice to see two engines originally producing different hp producing abou the same with the SIR. Thank you for whoever is spend time and money this weekend.

Greg
 
Just got off the phone with Dave at Raetech, He says they've changed the date to April 1! And changed the size to 29mm.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Can you share any more info on this conversation?
 
:wacko: Andy,
I think DJ was refferring to what BMW RACER conversation was, not an SCCA update.

Greg [/b]
Click to expand...

Yup, I know exactly what he was asking - and the comments posted by Darin in that post specifically address the information mistakingly conveyed by Mr. Finch to Mr. Norris. :rolleyes:

AB
 
I didn't want to drop Dave Finch in it! I called him the other day looking for another adapter for the 27mm SIR I got from him. That's when he told me the news, I thought it was important so I passed it along. Sorry if I got it wrong.

I WANT TO SAY THANKS TO:

1/ Dave Finch @ Raetech for his efforts.

2/ SCCA for coming to its senses and giving some time.

3/ To the other members of this board who steered me away from spending the time and money going down the wrong road with my routing of my intake system (Illegal)

Since we're not sure what size we're going to end up with and I already have a 27mm unit (that sounds bad) I'll try it at Willow Springs in a couple of weeks and see how it works.
 
R
And YES I DRIVE A BMW!!
[/b]
Click to expand...

Rob,

Say IT out loud, the Z3 is in fact an e-36 B)

John,

I hope to at least stop by Willow Springs at the next event. My e-36 should be on the way out about that time. Thanks for the revised ITE rules, at least I've got a class for my 2.8l Z3.

James

"Alpha Males drive BMW's....Nice People drive Alfa's" Jeremy Clarkson
 
To the guys who are posting here and are being reasonable, thanks.

I can see Gregs point, but it does generalize, and that's dangerous. Certainly if "Marranelloman" (Whoever that chicken who won't post his name actually IS), were typical of the SCCA E36 guys..the real RACERS who can really shoe a car...any car, not just their blinders on self loved mentaly masterbating B-M-Ws, then I too, would send my invitations to all of them to join some other organization.....

But "Marranelloman" and "Oldskool" are not the SCCA norm, thank the stars, and I have zero desire to exonerate anyone. IF guys are reasonable, ITS is a better place with as many models as we can make fit reasonably well.

Which is to say, models which can, when driven very well, and prepped to their max, win on certain tracks on certain days, against other models of equally superb prep and piloting.

The weight would have been easy. And you know what? THe objections would still be there.

But honestly, we can debate the degree of correction needed, but it is very hard for me to discuss, reasonably, the topic with anyone who denies there is a "problem". Lets move in a positive direction, which I think we are doing here....but probably not doing over "there" where we are being compared to the Supreme Court, a body with which we have zero in common, especially our function.

So, unlike the SCCA of old, we are now discussing things directly with the competitors...that's a big step. But also, I think we are being more flexible in an atttempt to be as fair as possible, while still trying to acheive the solution that is in the best interest for all. It IS unfortunate that the timing was bad on this. I wish I could turn the clock back. I can't, but I will do what I can to try to get data points and get this thing right.

If we all work together, and rise above our understandable need to protect our individual competive advantages, I think we can resolve this in the fastest and fairest way.

Read the main thread regarding this in the Rules section. I will be attending that dyno session, which is incidentally, a CRB 'sponsored' event. I will post results to the degree the parties allow.

Keep your eyes on the main thread.
 
Jake,

I'm watching this as maybe it will result in a way to class my 2.8l Z3 into ITS. Given it's short wheel base and semi-trailing arms out back, give me the same size SIR, and take 25-50 lbs off the 325 :happy204:

James
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top