The BMW E36 ITS Car Should......

BMW E36 In ITS

  • Weight as predicted by the ITAC model

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • An SIR

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Andy -

My fear is that, without an appropriate amount of squawking, the CRB and the BOD will get the impression that implementing SIR's in IT is an acceptable idea, and it will quickly spread to other IT classes. IMO - "It isn't, and it shouldn't".

This has nothing to do with the technology, which probably works but obviously requires some diddling to get to 'parity'. Plain & simple: I have major philosophical problems with SIR's in IT. If somebody asks for an opinion, or conducts a poll, I'm going to squawk.

I don't believe that this is a 'settled' issue. At this point, it's pushed off in a dirty little corner of IT (BMW vs. ITS), but when the plague spreads, the villagers will be storming the castle with torches and pitchforks.

I've got my matches ready.
[/b]
Click to expand...

John, please drop an e-mail:

[email protected]

I'm quite sure the Fastrack response will be "Thank you for your input" but that doesn't mean it's getting blown off. If there is a ground swell of sentiment one way or another on an issue, it most certainly gets discussed (at least within the ITAC if it applies to IT).
 
John, please drop an e-mail:

[email protected]

I'm quite sure the Fastrack response will be "Thank you for your input" but that doesn't mean it's getting blown off. If there is a ground swell of sentiment one way or another on an issue, it most certainly gets discussed (at least within the ITAC if it applies to IT).
[/b]
Click to expand...
So we will force the CRB and the ITAC to waste a bunch more time on one freaking car.....That's the problem with the system of squeeky wheel....
 
So we will force the CRB and the ITAC to waste a bunch more time on one freaking car.....That's the problem with the system of squeely wheel....
[/b]
Click to expand...

Our opinions differ as to the 'cause' and the 'result' of past actions. Let's leave it at that. As to the 'squeely' (sic) wheel...I don't feel guilty at all about questioning the wisdom of this move. They 'broke it', they can 'fix it', too. If the point of your post was 'you should just shut up and live with it', when did anyone put you in charge of this ? Must have missed that memo.

Off to the NEDiv Roundtable to bend some ears. Have a nice weekend.
 
So we will force the CRB and the ITAC to waste a bunch more time on one freaking car.....That's the problem with the system of squeeky wheel....
[/b]
Click to expand...
Who cares? the rule is in place the size is the question...Why must we keep polling?[/b]
Click to expand...

So Joe, we should just take the CRB ramming something down people's throats that don't necessarily want it? F that!

As John said, SIRs have no place in IT at this time. They sure as hell souldn't be implemented this way. Special treatment for one car is BS, plain and simple. This things smells worse than my driver's suit at the end of the Labor Day double at Summit Point!!! :119: (can't find the puking smiley!)
 
So Joe, we should just take the CRB ramming something down people's throats that don't necessarily want it? F that!

As John said, SIRs have no place in IT at this time. They sure as hell souldn't be implemented this way. Special treatment for one car is BS, plain and simple. This things smells worse than my driver's suit at the end of the Labor Day double at Summit Point!!! :119: (can't find the puking smiley!)
[/b]
Click to expand...
John, I am not in charge of it cause if I was it would be done and if you didn't like it still wouldn't change. My point is we have polled this about every way you can and we get the same result cause it is the same small group of people that participate in this site. The real issue is the rule has been passed and placed with a date you don't have to like it but polling it like its gonna change is just BS...Start a thread and bitch about it all you want say its a piece of crap blah,blah. But lets help the guys that have to be held to this rule deal with it and make it work....That's my point and nothing more. Nothing personal and nothing to gain from this other than good close racing and a car that fits the index of the class.
 
I have avoided having an opinion about this. After reading this SIR stuff for a long time, it becomes clear to me that it is entirely inappropriate in IT and was dropped on the entire community like a bomb. Put weight in the damn things! If the club cares to invest the proper time and money into doing some scrupulous research and generating a proposal for member input, supported by well established DATA for implementation later, then I'd be open to considering it. The initial proposal for the SIR was seductive-took a while to get re-centerd!
ps: this in no way is a discount of what Jake, Andy, et al have tried to do with this hot potatoe. And yeah-I've had experience with a Clayton and don't consider them to be very useful.
 
Well, obviously some are tired of the same ole', same ole', and I can't say anything fresh and new, except that it is a MEMBER driven, (and really run by members as well), organization. The employess work for the members, and the ITAC has gotten some input on this. I have to say some of it has been very well written, well reasoned and helpful. Of course, some of it has been accusatory, and just inflammatory, as you might expect. (Although I was surprised at some of the requests, or more correctly, the "suggestions", LOL).

That said, more input on any issue, even if it, as Joe says, appears to be a "done deal"... I'm not trying to "give hope" as Joe points out, but I am encouraging input on any issue at any time, it's what the club,....YOUR club, runs on. This site is but a tip of the IT iceberg, so tell your non computer friends to write in as well.

Phil, your comment on the Clayton dyno interests me. As we all know, data analysis from dynos is a bit tricky, but at the same time most dynos can be very useful, when you can acheive consistant and repeatable and comparable numbers. What issues do you have with the Clayton, and what do you prefer, and why?

Just curious!
 
my experience with 2 Claytons was lack of consistent results.
The larger issue is that I feel the club should underwrite a proffessional analysis at one well run cerifiably accurate dyno facility (wheel hub preffered-tires introduce a BIG varaible betrween cars) using several cars, with ongoing correction monitoring for each run (air checks)---wait-isn't this getting very complicated and unrealistic? I remember when IT started and some members were fuming that we were going to have junk car racing! What were (are) we thinking? KISS-"keep it simple, stupid!" (I don't mean you, Jake)
 
Intersting, thanks for weighing in Phil. (Will we be seeing you out this year?)

Good point on the club sponsored tech issue. There's discussion about that. This E36 thing has certainly highlighted a need.

What if, just kicking out an idea, we were able to get a dyno set up and a tech budget going in Kansas for this sort of thing? Would we be willing to have, like the SRF guys do, an extra "fund" tacked onto our entries? If you totaled the number of individual entries per season, (not just IT), and you added 1 or 2 dollars, you could have a pretty useful budget to do these sorts of things with.

Thoughts?
 
We had it right for about half a year - IT's Second Ranaissance.

The fact that SIRs are dramatically change the NEW first principle of the class in a very significant way - to what end, we have NO idea - won't keep it from happening.

K
 
The problem is that things are never as simple as they seem. Consider the SIR: in order to drive it's airflow to the sonic barrier, then there has to be a significant pressure differential across it-and this HAS to effect engine tuning significantly-there must be a reduction in airflow/manifold pressure before reacing it's expected airflow (horsepower) limit. Ergo, some tuning will be neccessary before your measurements are really meaningful. And any really smart engine tuner/builder would have to go back to the drawing board-if you take say 20hp off the top, then he'd regroup: shift the torque curve around to maximize the new paramaters/limit high speed airflow to the SIR imposed limit, and redesign the headers (new ID/primary lengths/collector) and quite possibly change lobe displacement angles (VANOS sure opens that door and I guarantee you the club couldn't find it-remember the Honda teardown?). If the club can't do satisfactory compliance checks in the field, what makes you think that they would hire and retain a highly skilled technical person (people with these abilities usually are entepreneurs) AND purchase and maintain the dyno? In my mind, this is magical thinking. What is that rule of logic? That which is simplest works best!
MASS! PS: I think one problem with the Clayton is that the rollers are too small in diameter.
PSS: there isn't a day I don't think about "being back" I'm toying with building another A2. The problem is that everything got ruined in the crash except the engine and RF suspension. ECM, headers, driver's seat, gearbox-you name it, got ruined. And, the A2 ain't really the car for the class-so why go to so much trouble. And, sometimes it seems to me that IT is getting irrelevant, that a formerly great place to play is being taken over by idiots. But thanks for asking, I appreciate that. Phil
 
Well, obviously some are tired of the same ole', same ole', and I can't say anything fresh and new, except that it is a MEMBER driven, (and really run by members as well), organization. The employess work for the members...
[/b]
Click to expand...

Truer words have never been written here.

Sometimes a squeeky wheel does need grease. John, you bend those ears. This ITAC has always encouraged MORE input from members.
 
my experience with 2 Claytons was lack of consistent results.
The larger issue is that I feel the club should underwrite a proffessional analysis at one well run cerifiably accurate dyno facility (wheel hub preffered-tires introduce a BIG varaible betrween cars) using several cars, with ongoing correction monitoring for each run (air checks)---wait-isn't this getting very complicated and unrealistic? I remember when IT started and some members were fuming that we were going to have junk car racing! What were (are) we thinking? KISS-"keep it simple, stupid!" (I don't mean you, Jake)
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well isn't this interesting and scary? :(
 
What dyno do you have faith in Joe?
[/b]
Click to expand...
All of them are fine. You need to worry about the operator. FAct is you can make any dyno say what you want it to say. I have used a Clayton,Superflow,Dynojet and dynapac in the last 2 years on the same cars. All provided quality information that was reasonable close to the other provided they were operated by a decent operator. I know what to look for and and throw all runs that are not doen properly.
 
All of them are fine. You need to worry about the operator. FAct is you can make any dyno say what you want it to say. I have used a Clayton,Superflow,Dynojet and dynapac in the last 2 years on the same cars. All provided quality information that was reasonable close to the other provided they were operated by a decent operator. I know what to look for and and throw all runs that are not doen properly. [/b]
Click to expand...

Joe, don't you think if your looking for quality controled data & results you shoud stick to one type of dyno?
 
Joe, don't you think if your looking for quality controled data & results you shoud stick to one type of dyno?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Sure in a perfect world, Or in my case I can take the data from every dyno and make real comparisons from A/F, run times,ect. The deal is we don't work in a perfect world we have to work from real world averages. SCCA would not be able to maintian a useful dyno anymore than what we have today. We need good volunteers like we have and car owners that are interested in the future of the catagory.
 
Sure in a perfect world, Or in my case I can take the data from every dyno and make real comparisons from A/F, run times,ect. The deal is we don't work in a perfect world we have to work from real world averages. SCCA would not be able to maintian a useful dyno anymore than what we have today. We need good volunteers like we have and car owners that are interested in the future of the catagory.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Joe is right on the dyno results. I have had some real bad numbers from an operator that did not properly load the rollers back before the run. Just look at the wasted time with a certain TR8 when the air/fuel meter was bad. Most will get you to +/- 5 percent or less for comparison sake. The printout with time based data and good AF readings is worth more than the peak numbers.
 
Amen brother Steve. I learned my lesson with that.

Dynos are like any other expensive piece of equipment. Make sure the operator and the equipment look up to snuff before using. And, if something doesn't seem right, it usually is not.

Interesting follow up question to the poll, which is now approaching 2:1 in favor of weight?

If you are a BMW driver, did you vote for weight or SIR?

If you are a non-BMW ITS driver, did you vote for weight or SIR?

If you are a non-ITS driver, did you vote for weight or SIR?

I think you will see (and no knock on them, just an observation) most of the 19 votes for the SIR being BMW drivers, plus perhaps Joe and a few others who believe in the technology (and no knock on them for doing so).

Me: Non-BMW ITS driver, voted for weight. Seems like the easiest fix, consistent with class philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top