Here is a picture of the "spec" restrictor for a class called "GTL". Their 1600cc motors hate the restrictor, and so do the drivers and engine builders.

I do not know if BMW "racers" will be required to buy this $350 piccolo, but I bought my Mom a 27" flatscreen Panasonic TV for $329.

I am very disappointed by the SCCA, but not surprised in looking at the recent history. A precedent has now been set that punishes true racers who read the rule book, and choose to build the best car.

The rules are now influenced by blatant political secrecy, and in this case influenced by people who hang out on internet forums instead of prepping their race car to win the old fashioned way.

2,133 posts on improvedtouring.com, at 5 minutes each, adds up to over a month of solid 40 hour work weeks on your race car. How fast do you think an RX7 would be if you locked yourself in a shop for a month, and did nothing but measure, fabricate, create and invent the ultimate RX7 within the 2005 rules?

Instead, these protagonists have chosen to sit in front of a computer and scheme with spineless accomplices at SCCA.

The problem is not BMW, it is "who's next?"

If the e46 325 goes fast? Bam! restrictor.

If someone ever builds a fast 944, and buys real race parts instead of buying them from some Porsche expert. Bam! restrictor.

The precedent has been set by SCCA. IT participation has been declining for years, and I believe this will only accelerate the downward spiral. Nobody, BMW driver or otherwise, likes to be rewarded with a 27mm slap in the face.

I agree with you 100%. If/when the E46's start beating Andy Bettencourt, it will get a restrictor too.

I agree this is a bad precident as there was no problem to fix, other than RX-7's not dominating any more. And, now all Andy has to do is to put a restrictor on any car that beats him. The ultimate "I" class.

I'm not sure if there was ever a good sactioning body to race with, but SCCA is proving again that it is run purely by politics. Why does NASA exist?

Bill

scca is changing to "mazda car club of america". if you don't run a mazda, you will eventually be driven out...

I'm wondering if Sunbelt will come out with a SIR/chip upgrade package. In terms of design, is a horn shape the best? What length works best and still fits in the engine compartment and stalls the engine within 4 seconds?

If Sunbelt makes one, I wonder how expensive it will be. I don't know that it is worth it to do the R&D to create an E36 specific SIR because the audience is so small. If they do make one, I bet it will be quite expensive to cover the R&D costs. I can only imagine how hard it would be to prototype different variations of a funnel shaped aluminum piece as opposed to a flat piece of aluminum with a round hole drilled in it. It's not like you have the entire GTL class to sell to. How many ITS E36 racers are left? I've seen *many* ITS 325's on sale in the past year.

Most importantly, when will they come out with one? I sure as hell am not going to buy an unproven piece. I don't even know if it will work with my air filter and I'm not about to shell out $350 just to find out!

The question about whether this was actually tested on an E36 ITS 325 was never answered. It appears that they didn't. I think the answer that was given was that the SIR has been tried and tested already. Uh, excuse me, but I thought the restrictor plate was also tried and tested already in T2 with the Z4, which is why it was required for 2005?

R&D costs depend on how much you want it developed.

You can use existing data and formulas to determine ballpark figures for length/angle/etc. This will get close enough and reduce R&D costs.

If a company dedicated 2 engineers, and a week, it can be done and ready for production runs. 1-2 days to design, 1 day to get manufacturing planning, and 1-2 days to get software package together. Thats only a couple grand of R&D.

I agree too. It's a shame because it's really going to hurt the SCCA. I, for one, have decided not to run with the SCCA and go with NASA and BMWCCA instead.

Also, for us Northeasterners, don't forget Nasa Northeast merged with PDA, and they started holding smaller scale races at thier DE's last year, and this year should have some cool events with bigger races integrated, cool idea, should be interesting.

I think a 180* compound radius on the entry to the 27mm venturi throat could pick you up a little bit of flow. Not much, but every little bit is going to help with that lil' bugger on there.

What's the projected power output with one of these things on an IT spec 325? I'd be thinking it'd be lucky to crack 130-140rwhp with that crap on there.

Snk328 -

I agree that some people will spend lots of money now to be legal, then have to redo it later when Sunbelt or another vendor produces a much better piece.

I am going to buy one and install it and dyno it. This will make my decision on what to do with the car. I should have the results in about 2 weeks.

I will post the dyno chart showing how bad it is.

Bill

Snk328 -

I agree that some people will spend lots of money now to be legal, then have to redo it later when Sunbelt or another vendor produces a much better piece.

I am going to buy one and install it and dyno it. This will make my decision on what to do with the car. I should have the results in about 2 weeks.

I will post the dyno chart showing how bad it is.

Bill
Sounds good Bill. What are you going to do if this doohickey doesn't fit with the air filter?

I've already measured my current intake setup and the SIR should fit with just some 3" silicone hoses as adaptors. If this works, I'll sell a kit for cheap.

I'm still curious if we have to do the sealed intake setup as that will take longer to fabricate and we will probably have to reroute the crankcase ventilation.

Bill

I've already measured my current intake setup and the SIR should fit with just some 3" silicone hoses as adaptors. If this works, I'll sell a kit for cheap.

I'm still curious if we have to do the sealed intake setup as that will take longer to fabricate and we will probably have to reroute the crankcase ventilation.

Bill
I have my crank case vent hole plugged in the rubber "elbow" between the MAF and the throttle body. The crank case vent hose goes to a catch can.

I think the other hose goes to the throttle body (?). Thus, wouldn't this be considered a sealed intake setup?

Make sure that your engine stalls within 4 seconds of covering the SIR intake side. What if it doesn't? That would really suck, as we would all have to wait for somebody to make an SIR just for our engines.

Make sure that your engine stalls within 4 seconds of covering the SIR intake side. What if it doesn't? That would really suck, as we would all have to wait for somebody to make an SIR just for our engines.

That's to makw sure your intake is sealed and not pulling in air from "leaks" to gain more power. It shouldn't have anything to do with the design of the restrictor.

Here are some DP restrictors crawford makes:

http://www.crawfordcomposites.com/restrictorsnew.jpg

I agree with you 100%. If/when the E46's start beating Andy Bettencourt, it will get a restrictor too.

I agree this is a bad precident as there was no problem to fix, other than RX-7's not dominating any more. And, now all Andy has to do is to put a restrictor on any car that beats him. The ultimate "I" class.

I'm not sure if there was ever a good sactioning body to race with, but SCCA is proving again that it is run purely by politics. Why does NASA exist?

Bill

This could be the single most insulting and ignorant post I have ever seen. Not only is it insulting to me (whom you have never met or spoken too BTW) but it is a nice shot at the other 8 members of the ITAC and the entire CRB (who actually make the decisions). I have defended the E36 crowd to owners of other makes but it stops as of now. Thanks.

1. The CRB made this decision. The amount of 'concern' from E36 owners to a weight increase was heard loud and clear. Why the E46 323 is ok at 3000lbs and the E36 at 3100ish is outrageous - I have no idea. Take a look at what the Bimmers in T2 are running around at.

2. The ITAC/CRB has a classification process. All the classifications and re-classifications over the past 2 years have been done using this method. Anything classed prior to that hadn't been through. When we ran everything through, some inequities showed up. The BMW (sans RP), some cars in ITA, and mostly cars that were classed WAY to conservatively. 'Corrections' have been published in the Feb addendum to Fast Track.

3. There was a problem to fix. The RP's being used varied widely in their design. If you designed an SIR in the dimensions of the 2005 spec, you had something that did NOTHING. Those who chose a plain old flat-plate lost a little power - but there was a hole in the rules. Check raetech.com for some info in this technology. The numbers getting mentioned in this thread (130-140whp) are purely uneducated numbers. The sizing is done with a detailed formula.

4. NASA exists because no organization can be everything to everyone. They do an excellent job with the 'spec' series but I doubt they could ever do better than SCCA in the larger picture. Many have questioned the safety of the events they run. Regardless, there is room for both clubs as constituted now.

5. The process is the process. We have designed it to be as equitible and repeatable as possible. Once a car has gone through it, that is that. If the E46 323 rises to the top, so be it. We are not in the business of balancing the classes on the head of a pin. No bull.

I could go on and on but lets quit it with the 'it's Andy Bettencourt's personal SCCA' crap. If you want to actually learn what is going on, then ask the questions instead of trotting out the Black Helicopter nonsense.

Feel free to e-mail me at andybettencourt AT hotmail.com if you would like to contact me now or in the future. As always, if you have comments, please send them to the CRB at crb AT scca.com. Every letter hits our agenda.

AB

3. There was a problem to fix. The RP's being used varied widely in their design. If you designed an SIR in the dimensions of the 2005 spec, you had something that did NOTHING. Those who chose a plain old flat-plate lost a little power - but there was a hole in the rules. Check raetech.com for some info in this technology. The numbers getting mentioned in this thread (130-140whp) are purely uneducated numbers. The sizing is done with a detailed formula.


AB

so what is the magic formula and what is the calculated "educated" number for hp???

Rob and I are working on this as I type. With the help of Turbohoses we will come up with something. Is the intake allowed to be free until the throttle body? In other words, does the airbox still have to be used. Also what about after the airbox.

Placement of the restrictor in the intake tract will make a difference, so if the rules do not specify...thats somewhere for improvement.

Any idea where "normally" the preferred placement is (given that we have a HFM in the mix)???

ps...The Crawford pieces look like simple weber trumpets with different tuned exit lengths in cf...any more info on these?

Placement of the restrictor in the intake tract will make a difference, so if the rules do not specify...thats somewhere for improvement.

Volume. We will get the power back. Can't say anything else. We don't need the E30 guys hearing any of this either:evil2
dale

Volume, Angle, Length, vortices, interior surface, shape, much much more as well :)

Dale, check ya mail

so what is the magic formula and what is the calculated "educated" number for hp???

I do not know the formula for sizing an SIR, all I know is that there is a very detailed and very accurate one. The CRB and Raetech would be the first place I would look if I wanted to know how 27mm was chosen. (For the record, I have requested that info as I would like to know as well)

In order to fit into the performance envelope of ITS, 220 crank hp would be the limit for a 2850lb car. If you are making less, you won't be affected, if you are making more, 220 is your max. Keep in mind the E36 torque advatage is not affected at all.

AB

In order to fit into the performance envelope of ITS, 220 crank hp would be the limit for a 2850lb car. If you are making less, you won't be affected, if you are making more, 220 is your max. Keep in mind the E36 torque advatage is not affected at all.

So you're telling me that if you are making 210 horsepower and you bolt this restrictor on with no other changes that you'll still be making 210 horsepower and that the torque curve won't be affected at all? :confused

Yes. Do yourself a favor and read up on SIR technology. I know it is counter-intuitive on the surface but it not only is a limit on flow but an 100% optimization at the same time.

AB

It essentially can provide a choke point, so the RPM limit can lowered by the use of the SIR. You just won't make any more HP after a certain RPM.

This could be the single most insulting and ignorant post I have ever seen. Not only is it insulting to me (whom you have never met or spoken too BTW) but it is a nice shot at the other 8 members of the ITAC and the entire CRB (who actually make the decisions). I have defended the E36 crowd to owners of other makes but it stops as of now. Thanks.[B]

I have read most of your posts on itforums.com. You have continually personally attacked BMW owners and continue to belittle them when they had valid points and call us whiners. From your posts, it is clearly a personal issue you have with BMW's and you have a conflict of interest in that you build and sell and race RX-7's.

If it is insulting, so be it. It is still true from your posts that you have singled out the one car that beats beats you for adjustment.

As for the CRB, we all know how political it is and no one has pointed out a real issue that needed to be solved by this. The HP argument makes no sense and you have stated that the "rx-7 is the benchmark" That is very self serving since that is what you race and no rational reason was given why it should be the benchmark.

I don't ever remember you ever defending the BMW's by your posts. If anything, you have continued degrade us personally and make inflammatory statements.

Other people here can go there and search for Andy's posts to see what he said. I stand by my statements based on his posts.


5. The process is the process. We have designed it to be as equitible and repeatable as possible. Once a car has gone through it, that is that. If the E46 323 rises to the top, so be it. We are not in the business of balancing the classes on the head of a pin. No bull.



So, does that mean no more adjustments for E36 325's? Can we hold you and the CRB to this that if the 323 or another currently classed car such as the 944S rises to the top that it won't get weight or a restrictor?

If I have anything more to say other than this, I will email you personally to discuss.

Bill

I have read most of your posts on itforums.com. You have continually personally attacked BMW owners and continue to belittle them when they had valid points and call us whiners. From your posts, it is clearly a personal issue you have with BMW's and you have a conflict of interest in that you build and sell and race RX-7's.

Simply not true. As a matter of fact, I have received tons of e-mails telling me how much restraint I have shown (as well as others on the ITAC) when confronted by (certain) BMW owners looking to pick a fight. I have been nothing but open about the BIG picture. I have NEVER called anyone a whiner...MANY others have, NEVER me. There are NO quotes to support this. I have no personal issue with BMW's. I have an issue with ANY car that is allowed to run outside the process every other car has to be measured by. Understand that the ITAC never recommended the 2005 implamentation of the restrictor plate, it was the CRB's decision. For 2006, when we found out that some were 'cheating' the RP in 2005, we asked the CRB to either set the weight were it should be, or give it an SIR.

If it is insulting, so be it. It is still true from your posts that you have singled out the one car that beats beats you for adjustment.

Wrong again. Take a look at the new addendum in Fast Track. Cars that were light in the process gained weight, cars that were heavy, lost it. No agenda, just a simple look at the entire playing field through the same pair of glasses.

As for the CRB, we all know how political it is and no one has pointed out a real issue that needed to be solved by this. The HP argument makes no sense and you have stated that the "rx-7 is the benchmark" That is very self serving since that is what you race and no rational reason was given why it should be the benchmark.

I have never stated that the RX-7 is the benchmark. I have stated that it fits the ITS performance envelope (PE) - along with the 240Z and the Integra GS-R. When you define a PE, you don't define it at the very pinnacle of the class, then you have to make changes to EVERYONE. You find the meat of the class and adjust from there. Some get lighter, some get heavier. The least amount of moves would be the best IMHO. 2850 is too light for an unrestricted E36 325 in ITS. There have been no arguments to support any other conclusion. Data provided to us by BMW owners validate that 240 crank hp is obtainable in legal IT trim. Coincidentally just a hair over our estimate of a 25% increase with IT mods. That is a good 20 hp outside the PE for ITS, nevermind the huge torque numbers.

I don't ever remember you ever defending the BMW's by your posts. If anything, you have continued degrade us personally and make inflammatory statements.

Bull. You read what you want to read but I have never attacked anyone. I may ask peope to take a hard look 'outside thier own world' once in a while but you have to look at the big picture - and a lot of people have a hard time doing so. You should see the letters we get. Do you think the one that asked us to remove any engine restrictions from the BMW, keep it at 2850 and ADD weight to the RX-7 was a legitimate request? Maybe 'telling it like it is' is a personal attack to some.

I have defended BMW posts off-line. Many people don't have the stones to stand up and call people out. They complain to me that so-and-so said this...blah blah blah. I understand everyone is concerned about their own backyard but it has to be tempered with some reality.

Other people here can go there and search for Andy's posts to see what he said. I stand by my statements based on his posts.

Please do. You will see that all we are asking is that everyone be measured with the same stick. In this case, 3100lbs unrestricted or an SIR.

So, does that mean no more adjustments for E36 325's? Can we hold you and the CRB to this that if the 323 or another currently classed car such as the 944S rises to the top that it won't get weight or a restrictor?

We don't make the decisions, the ITAC just recommends. I wish that 3100 was the choice because the process is the process. If the 944S or 323 rise to the top, so be it! We won't make small prod-style changes - it just isn't worth it. If we are all held to the same standard, let the flag fall where it does. The SIR has proven to be very accurate.

If I have anything more to say other than this, I will email you personally to discuss.

Bill

I extend that to all.

AB

It is hard to fathom what logic, if any, SCCA is exhibiting with this decision. Taken in context, it appears to be an end-around way to penalize the 325 after the drubbing that SCCA took for its ill-advised weight penalty collapsed under its own weight (pun intended).

I also see this as political BS...and the major conflict of interest exhibited by decision makers also being SRX7 builders creates the appearance--APPEARANCE--of impropriety.

It is hard to fathom what logic, if any, SCCA is exhibiting with this decision. Taken in context, it appears to be an end-around way to penalize the 325 after the drubbing that SCCA took for its ill-advised weight penalty collapsed under its own weight (pun intended).

I also see this as political BS...and the major conflict of interest exhibited by decision makers also being SRX7 builders creates the appearance--APPEARANCE--of impropriety.

These are serious questions....

1. What is it about the decision or teh logic that you don't understand? I can see some may not agree, but not to understand the issues?

2. What drubbing on what weight penalty are you referring to? The 'correction' to 2950 they tried to do?

3. The ITAC makes NO DECISIONS, the CRB does.

4. SRX7 builder? Who builds those?

I don't want to 'personally attack' anyone here as has been suggested I do but I see nothing in this post that makes much sense. Please educate me.

AB

1. What, exactly, are the "issues"? So far, they are...um...not evident.

2. Yes.

3. So? We all know how the CRB gets its agenda items & recommended decisions. Please do not be coy. This is like saying the Congress does not put laws into place, the President is the true decision maker.

4. Don't be coy, please. I think Singletrack made this point abundandly clear. IIRC, you build, sell, and race RX-7's. Is this not correct?

I have attacked no one. I have pointed out a glaring appearance of impropriety in a decision that is, so far, in search of a problem.

If you wish to personally attack me for pointing this out, please do not hold back.

1. What, exactly, are the "issues"? So far, they are...um...not evident.

2. Yes.

3. So? We all know how the CRB gets its agenda items & recommended decisions. Please do not be coy. This is like saying the Congress does not put laws into place, the President is the true decision maker.

4. Don't be coy, please. I think Singletrack made this point abundandly clear. IIRC, you build, sell, and race RX-7's. Is this not correct?

I have attacked no one. I have pointed out a glaring appearance of impropriety in a decision that is, so far, in search of a problem.

If you wish to personally attack me for pointing this out, please do not hold back.

No attacks forthcoming. Just wanted to understand where you are coming from. We will agree to diassagree that there is no problem. You are in the vast minority.

Just because the previous admins folded under the pressure doesn't mean it was the right decision...

We recommend and we have been leaned on more and more in the past couple years BUT we don't have ANY power. The CRB signs the checks.

Yes, *I* sell and race RX-7's, Miata, RSX's, etc. We now have 1 RX-7 and 5 Miata's in our care. We have also raced M3's with SCCA, a 328 in SCCA Pro and now RSX's in GAC. That may appear to be an issue but IF you knew me, you would know it isn't. If you understood the issues, you would know there isn't any impropriety.

I am done here. I wanted to address the initial personal attack. Mail me privately for more discussion.

AB

I do not know you. I did not say there was any impropriety. I said there is a glaring APPEARANCE of one. Big difference. And all people in leadership positions should avoid these--often by recusing themselves--at all costs. Perhaps you should have recused yourself on this issue? It might have quelled a lot of the negative feelings on this...

Again...what is the "issue" being solved with this rule change? Still no answer on that...

With all due respect, I have no interest in discussing this issue privately. This should be discussed PUBLICLY.

I do not know you. I did not say there was any impropriety. I said there is a glaring APPEARANCE of one. Big difference. And all people in leadership positions should avoid these--often by recusing themselves--at all costs. Perhaps you should have recused yourself on this issue? It might have quelled a lot of the negative feelings on this...

Again...what is the "issue" being solved with this rule change? Still no answer on that...

With all due respect, I have no interest in discussing this issue privately. This should be discussed PUBLICLY.

First off, just because I answer peoples questions publically, doesn't mean I didn't recuse myself in a committee vote. Just so you know, the two choices were given to the CRB unanimously by the ITAC. This is just the backlash of the thought processes being public. I could say that many who feel this way jumped to conclusions without knowing the facts.

The issue. Wow. You don't know? OK:

1. The BMW is capable of 240+ hp in IT-prep
2. At 2850 lbs, it is over 1hp/lb better than anything in the class
3. The generic restrictor requirment put in place in 2005 was done poorly. It can be 'engineered' to flow properly. To add to that, a RP only limits a % of the airflow to the TB. What if the TB is oversized? You may have 'restricted' nothing. SIR technology can limit HP through design and formulas.
4. Target hp/wt is around 12.9. There are other factors that add or subtract to final weights (like brake size, aero, suspension design, drivetrain layout, etc) but lets use just these as our basis. The E36 would have to weigh 3100 to "fit" the ITS performance envelope - or only make 220 hp at 2850.

What would you rather have, 220hp at 2850 or 240+ at 3100? The CRB decided that the SIR was the better choice. Time will tell.

To help me understand your POV, what non-issue was addressed...or, if you were King for a Day, what would the E36 weigh and at what restriction?

AB

AB, thank you for responding.

1) So? Sounds like it is a better platform for racing these days

2) See (1) above...Is this justification for SCCA's seeming "punish 325's at all costs so that RX7's can once again dominate" attitude? Again, I am not saying this is the agenda...but the appearance of this agenda is indisputable.

3) Translation: "we tried to make the 325's lose, but they are just too good, so we are planning to up the arms race, to make them lose at all costs"

4) Here is a suggestion: make ITS a spec series...that is the only way you can guarantee something resembling parity; anything else seems pathetic when you are at Attempt #3 to hinder the best platform in the class

So...did you recuse yourself or not? If so, congratulations! If not, for shame.

If I were king for a day? I'd keep the 325 weight & restrictor plate, and thus create a stronger incentive for development of the other cars in the class. Or, I might give 50 lbs of weight reduction to the others, AT MOST.

AB, thank you for responding.

1) So? Sounds like it is a better platform for racing these days

2) See (1) above...Is this justification for SCCA's seeming "punish 325's at all costs so that RX7's can once again dominate" attitude? Again, I am not saying this is the agenda...but the appearance of this agenda is indisputable.

3) Translation: "we tried to make the 325's lose, but they are just too good, so we are planning to up the arms race, to make them lose at all costs"

4) Here is a suggestion: make ITS a spec series...that is the only way you can guarantee something resembling parity; anything else seems pathetic when you are at Attempt #3 to hinder the best platform in the class

So...did you recuse yourself or not? If so, congratulations! If not, for shame.

If I were king for a day? I'd keep the 325 weight & restrictor plate, and thus create a stronger incentive for development of the other cars in the class. Or, I might give 50 lbs of weight reduction to the others, AT MOST.

Well, we *may* have to end the debate here. You and I are talking from two different sides of the universe. You say things like #2 and #3. NOBODY wants to make the E36's extinct. All we want is to real in an OVERDOG. And that is absolutely the case for an unrestrited E36 325 at 2850lbs. The 2005 RP requirment failed. It can be defeated. Another solution had to be devised. Weight or restriction. The CRB believes the SIR will put the BMW EXACTLY where the PE of ITS is - coincindentally exactly where the GSR, RX-7, 240Z are today - and any new car that gets classed would be placed.

There was no need for myself or the Chairman to vote, it was unanimous - our votes would not have affected the outcome. Should I have voted, I would have voted the same way.

As far as #1, would you be upset should no process be in place and the 944S come into the class at say, 2600? What I am trying to say is that the "I picked my car, you picked your car - so pound sand if mine is an overdog" thought process can hurt you should something obsolete your car. The goal is to have everyone measured by the same yardstick - not to cripple something into oblivion. THAT is what we are doing...or trying to do with the best intentions.

We want nothing to dominate, except driving and preparation. To think that the RX-7's and the 240Z are underdeveloped is pretty far off...take those two plus the Bimmer...development is about equal.

AB

I do not visit this section of the forum very much but i feel i have to weigh in on this issue. I own a 98 328i street car and am a BMW fanatic. That said, i also race a 240z in ITS. A very well prepared and competitive Z, however, those of us that do take our time in preparation and development are easily outdone by mediocre drivers with 30-40 more horsepower and a large checkbook.
Above all, i think the large amounts of money being spent on IT cars goes against the class philosophy. Somehow this needs to be reigned in. The restrictor is a more viable option because it puts a HP cap on the car instead of forcing the good BMW guys to open checkbooks even more to develop more horsepower than they already are to compensate for added weight.
ITS is a wonderful class, but it is becoming spec BMW at this point, and i dont think that was the intent of the class either.

Besides...what is truly more fun...having a great race with other good drivers or walking away from everyone at the start and winning by 20 seconds in a sprint race?

I do not visit this section of the forum very much but i feel i have to weigh in on this issue. I own a 98 328i street car and am a BMW fanatic. That said, i also race a 240z in ITS. A very well prepared and competitive Z, however, those of us that do take our time in preparation and development are easily outdone by mediocre drivers with 30-40 more horsepower and a large checkbook.
Above all, i think the large amounts of money being spent on IT cars goes against the class philosophy. Somehow this needs to be reigned in. The restrictor is a more viable option because it puts a HP cap on the car instead of forcing the good BMW guys to open checkbooks even more to develop more horsepower than they already are to compensate for added weight.
ITS is a wonderful class, but it is becoming spec BMW at this point, and i dont think that was the intent of the class either.

Oh here we go again. BMW guys are all rich with lots of money in their checkbooks. Needless to say that a brand new RX-7 fully developed would cost the same amount of money as a new BMW. Or that a fully developed 944, 911 2.0, GSR, Prelude, etc would all cost the same amount of money to build new today. And some of those cars mentioned would cost more. Don't start on making the class cheaper. If you want to go cheaper don't race. That is the cheapest option.

ITS is a wonderful class, but it is becoming spec BMW at this point, and i dont think that was the intent of the class either.

The rules did specifically state that no car was guaranteed to be competitive. In the past, the class has been "spec" rx-7 or even "spec" datsun in some ways. Those cars were never reigned in to make the E30 325 or other ITS backmarkers competitive.

I got some information from one of the SIR makers that also racing in GT class. He states the estimated calculated HP for the 27mm SIR is 190HP. I'm asking for clarification, but I assume this is crank HP. This is 1 more HP than stock.

This is directly from an email from the person who designed this SIR that has been posted on this board. I'll ask him if I can post his email.

Bill

EXACTLY, Bryan. Spot-on. Same for Seth.

Andy...FYI....I have no dog in this fight. While I have a National SCCA license, I do not have, nor do I intend to buy or build, an ITS car. However, I believe I am voicing what a vast majority of those who campaign BMW's in SCCA CR feel: that this is a bald-faced attempt to get the RX7's dominant again, and to help the business of those who happen to build & sell them for a living. I could be dead-wrong on this, but, as previously expressed, the appearance of impropriety/conflict of interest here is...alarming.

EXACTLY, Bryan. Spot-on. Same for Seth.

Andy...FYI....I have no dog in this fight. While I have a National SCCA license, I do not have, nor do I intend to buy or build, an ITS car. However, I believe I am voicing what a vast majority of those who campaign BMW's in SCCA CR feel: that this is a bald-faced attempt to get the RX7's dominant again, and to help the business of those who happen to build & sell them for a living. I could be dead-wrong on this, but, as previously expressed, the appearance of impropriety/conflict of interest here is...alarming.

I also agree with Seth, Brian's post is debatable.

If you are voicing what the vast majority who run E36's in SCCA CR really feel, then I feel sorry that you all have such a short sighted, jaded view of the club, it's processes and it's volunteers. It is dissapointing that we have failed you in perception. As far as equality for everyone, I submit the best is yet to come.

AB

It is dissapointing that we have failed you in perception.

AB


Dude, whatever. Let me say it one last time: when a person with a vested interest in making one particular car dominant/competitive again plays an integral part in multiple attemps to hinder the car that keep beating it, the only perception possible is a conflict of interest and possible self-dealing impropriety.

What other perception could there possibly be? Come on, you are obviously a smart guy. Was it not apparent what the private & public reaction would be from this issue? I could predict it a mile away, months before the decision(s) came down!! And I don't even race in ITS!!

Hey Bill... That should be wheel horsepower...otherwise...we DO have a problem. Speedsource RX-7's make 185 rwhp+.

The 27mm SIR should support 220 bhp =~187 rwhp (15% drivetrain loss...touches wood).

I assume you got this from David Finch?

I got some information from one of the SIR makers that also racing in GT class. He states the estimated calculated HP for the 27mm SIR is 190HP. I'm asking for clarification, but I assume this is crank HP. This is 1 more HP than stock.

This is directly from an email from the person who designed this SIR that has been posted on this board. I'll ask him if I can post his email.

Bill

Yes, it was David Finch.

From what he said, we are supposed to run an actual air box and have the SIR be the only air source. If so, we have some work to do in building an airbox as all we have off the shelf is the stock box.

Are there sources right now for air boxes that we can adapt for our use? From what Dale said, we need a really big air box.

Bill

Dude, whatever. Let me say it one last time: when a person with a vested interest in making one particular car dominant/competitive again plays an integral part in multiple attemps to hinder the car that keep beating it, the only perception possible is a conflict of interest and possible self-dealing impropriety.

What other perception could there possibly be? Come on, you are obviously a smart guy. Was it not apparent what the private & public reaction would be from this issue? I could predict it a mile away, months before the decision(s) came down!! And I don't even race in ITS!!


Andy, I would really appreciate your response to this.

Apparently, we had the same conversation with David.

I am going to feed the airbox with the SIR and build the largest volume I can manage...

I guess we'll see how it goes.

Yes, it was David Finch.

From what he said, we are supposed to run an actual air box and have the SIR be the only air source. If so, we have some work to do in building an airbox as all we have off the shelf is the stock box.

Are there sources right now for air boxes that we can adapt for our use? From what Dale said, we need a really big air box.

Bill

Dude, whatever. Let me say it one last time: when a person with a vested interest in making one particular car dominant/competitive again plays an integral part in multiple attemps to hinder the car that keep beating it, the only perception possible is a conflict of interest and possible self-dealing impropriety.

What other perception could there possibly be? Come on, you are obviously a smart guy. Was it not apparent what the private & public reaction would be from this issue? I could predict it a mile away, months before the decision(s) came down!! And I don't even race in ITS!!

Why comment on it? You are going to think what you think. You refuse to not use words and phrases like "hinder", "punish", "make them lose", "end-around" etc. If you can't see that all anyone wants is PARITY, then we have no grounds for debate.

I do understand how there can be an initial cloud of doubt. Happened on the Honda forum when the Integra's, CRX's , 240SX's and Miata's gained weight with this same process implementation hit the addendum. But the difference is that they understood the issues at hand and accepted that there was now 10-15 cars to choose from in ITA that are now on a level playing field.

I can't say this enough times. It's not about the on-track performance at the face of the issue. It's about getting every car to fit the process so we can move forward on equal footing. I fail to see how this is so hard to understand. While I fight the perception that you think I am a self-serving liar with you BMW guys, you fight the perception amongst almost all the other drivers in all the other classes as being the 'take my ball and go home' crowd. Now that your unfair advantage is to be mitigated, you are sour. Nobody wants to send you to the back of the grid, just take the green flag with the same chance of winning as the next guy. Out-drive him or out-prep him, yes - but given equal amounts of both, we owe it to everyone that it is fair...

If you don't agree, I am sorry - but you are in the VAST minority. Bank on it.

AB

Pictures speak a 1000 (maybe more in this case) words.

http://www.americanlemans.com/Gallery/53/531232006151734375.JPG

You are using double speak. You say on track performance doesn't matter, yet state everyone else in the class is tired of getting beat at the track.

Which is it? The reality is you are getting tired of getting beat by better car prep and driver. The ARRC showed that with the other RX-7 kicking your asses.

We already had parity in the class. The ARRC showed that this year.


It's not about the on-track performance at the face of the issue. It's about getting every car to fit the process so we can move forward on equal footing.


I'll accept this as on track performance does not matter. But then you say


Nobody wants to send you to the back of the grid, just take the green flag with the same chance of winning as the next guy.


This is about on track performance.

We already had what you were talking about. The on track performance has shown that at the highest level at the ARRC, we had parity.

Parity is about how the cars finish a race. Parity is not about the numbers on paper. We know that each car has different potential and just weight vs. hp is only a small part of the potential speed of a car. This has been proven over and again in club racing and Solo II.

Which is it?

Prove that we are in the miniority. If you look at the grid numbers for ITS nationwide, I will bet we are not in the minority. Maybe minority slightly to RX-7's which will now be the dominant car.

You say you don't want to put us mid pack or back of the grid, but this is what you have done.

When your beloved RX-7's were dominating and people put a SIR on your car and made "parity" with the 944's, what would you say?

You claim all these crappy drivers in badly prepared BMW's are winning. Where is the proof and again, this is about on track performance that you say doesn't matter.

This is the biggest bull I've ever heard.

You state the problem is lack of parity in results at the track, but the solution is some formula that doesn't account for the problem of lack of parity at the track?

You can't have both.

Most rational people see it for what it is and you won't address it because you know it is true and we are calling you out on it.

I didn't want to post anymore to you and this is my last post on this.

We all know the truth and you do too. You can't admit it because that is the truth and you are fully part of the deception.

Have fun getting second at ARRC this year to another RX-7. I think it is only fitting that you won't get what you worked so hard behind the scenes to do. LOL.

Bill

1) We have to intake air from the engine bay or (in our case) the original intake location.

2) I assume they are not running a HFM/MAF!???

Pictures speak a 1000 (maybe more in this case) words.

http://www.americanlemans.com/Gallery/53/531232006151734375.JPG

You are using double speak. You say on track performance doesn't matter, yet state everyone else in the class is tired of getting beat at the track.

Which is it? The reality is you are getting tired of getting beat by better car prep and driver. The ARRC showed that with the other RX-7 kicking your asses.

We already had parity in the class. The ARRC showed that this year.



I'll accept this as on track performance does not matter. But then you say



This is about on track performance.

We already had what you were talking about. The on track performance has shown that at the highest level at the ARRC, we had parity.

Parity is about how the cars finish a race. Parity is not about the numbers on paper. We know that each car has different potential and just weight vs. hp is only a small part of the potential speed of a car. This has been proven over and again in club racing and Solo II.

Which is it?

Prove that we are in the miniority. If you look at the grid numbers for ITS nationwide, I will bet we are not in the minority. Maybe minority slightly to RX-7's which will now be the dominant car.

You say you don't want to put us mid pack or back of the grid, but this is what you have done.

When your beloved RX-7's were dominating and people put a SIR on your car and made "parity" with the 944's, what would you say?

You claim all these crappy drivers in badly prepared BMW's are winning. Where is the proof and again, this is about on track performance that you say doesn't matter.

This is the biggest bull I've ever heard.

You state the problem is lack of parity in results at the track, but the solution is some formula that doesn't account for the problem of lack of parity at the track?

You can't have both.

Most rational people see it for what it is and you won't address it because you know it is true and we are calling you out on it.

I didn't want to post anymore to you and this is my last post on this.

We all know the truth and you do too. You can't admit it because that is the truth and you are fully part of the deception.

Have fun getting second at ARRC this year to another RX-7. I think it is only fitting that you won't get what you worked so hard behind the scenes to do. LOL.

Bill

We agree on something...we don't want to adress each others posts. You aren't listening from where I sit.

On-track performance is used to VALIDATE, not to class. The 'process' is numbers driven - and can be used for a car that have never hit the track. Refer back to this paragraph for a response to the multiple gripes you have on the topic.

I have no problem getting beat by better car prep and drivers. That is racing. I haven't raced an RX-7 in almost 2 years. What EVERYONE in IT wants is equality. It won't be done like it is in Prod but it can be done at ground level. Your view on 'reality' as it pertains to me is way out of whack. Believe what you want but you are dead wrong.

Parity MAY be about how cars finish a race. There are so many variables in a race that it is impossible to use that as your primary source of info. Using it as supporting information for a documented process is what we do. Same with dyno numbers. Too many variables to base things on but they can be used as data to look at trends. Take the comments on the 2nd place car at the ARRC - basically said Chet was toying with him. Take it for what you paid for it.

What proof do you have that we put you to the back of the grid? You have NONE. NONE. Pure conjecture. The sky hasn't fallen yet.

No person that I know see it this way that doesn't drive a BMW. Sorry for that. You don't know anything about the truth and you won't bait me anymore. Your last sentence is telling to who you are as a person.

Thanks for that one. I am done with this. Sorry you all feel this way.

AB

1) We have to intake air from the engine bay or (in our case) the original intake location.

2) I assume they are not running a HFM/MAF!???

1. Its poking out because it allows them to get the restrictor that long...no real ram air effect, its just to get a longer restrictor. You can just have it end somewhere else in the engine bay.

2.While HFM is slightly more accurate, using MAP is less restrictive, and can yield more power then having a more accurate sensor (but with the sensors they use its not much of a difference anyways). Some cases its easyer to work with Stand Alones with MAP's, and the much less air restriction is a big plus (S54 in particular).

I know how everything "works"...point is, they have less space constriction to deal with and a straighter shot to the airbox. In fact being multiple TB's they already have a large airbox in place.

We need to:

a) fab a large volume airbox within the confines of the front right corner of the engine bay.

b) feed said airbox with the 27mm SIR.

c) feed the HFM from this airbox and make the 90deg connection to the STOCK TB/intake.

Thanx...

1. Its poking out because it allows them to get the restrictor that long...no real ram air effect, its just to get a longer restrictor. You can just have it end somewhere else in the engine bay.

2.While HFM is slightly more accurate, using MAP is less restrictive, and can yield more power then having a more accurate sensor (but with the sensors they use its not much of a difference anyways). Some cases its easyer to work with Stand Alones with MAP's, and the much less air restriction is a big plus (S54 in particular).

So quit typing and start fabbing!

Thanx...I will.

So quit typing and start fabbing!

Pictures speak a 1000 (maybe more in this case) words.

http://www.americanlemans.com/Gallery/53/531232006151734375.JPGThat setup might be a bit difficult in an E36 with a stock dimension radiator ... :D

I assume those guys get to run a custom radiator, but is it lower to help with CG or to run that airbox?

Yep, custom rad thats lower, i'm planning a very similar setup. Radiator with fluid is pretty heavy when you think about it, and its far in front...just have to make sure you can excavate the air thats coming through it.

Radiator with fluid is pretty heavy when you think about it, and its far in front...just have to make sure you can excavate the air thats coming through it.The stock system is only a couple gallons, even if you have a larger system it's probably only a couple gallons in the radiator itself, half of which is already in the lower part of the radiator, so you are lowering only about 10-12 pounds including the radiator. I suppose every little bit helps, but that seems like a lot of work for the improvement .... but then again, if you have the budget and need the straight shot for the intake ...

The stock system is only a couple gallons, even if you have a larger system it's probably only a couple gallons in the radiator itself, half of which is already in the lower part of the radiator, so you are lowering only about 10-12 pounds including the radiator. I suppose every little bit helps, but that seems like a lot of work for the improvement .... but then again, if you have the budget and need the straight shot for the intake ...

Well, 1gal is what 7lbs? The radiator itself, plus mounting, plus tubes going to it, when you factor in it all, its well worth it, and not really that difficult when you think about it. And the straight shot intake is a nice benefit, but thats mostly so they don't get too screwed fmr the restrictor.

Why comment on it? You are going to think what you think. You refuse to not use words and phrases like "hinder", "punish", "make them lose", "end-around" etc. If you can't see that all anyone wants is PARITY, then we have no grounds for debate.

....

While I fight the perception that you think I am a self-serving liar with you BMW guys, you fight the perception amongst almost all the other drivers in all the other classes as being the 'take my ball and go home' crowd. Now that your unfair advantage is to be mitigated, you are sour. Nobody wants to send you to the back of the grid, just take the green flag with the same chance of winning as the next guy. Out-drive him or out-prep him, yes - but given equal amounts of both, we owe it to everyone that it is fair...

If you don't agree, I am sorry - but you are in the VAST minority. Bank on it.

AB

Andy, Andy, Andy...you are digging yourself deeper, hoss.

Paragraph 1 above: OK, Andy, I will not use those words. However, it does not change the appearance of a major conflict of interest, which you seem to be ignoring at all costs. "Parity" is being championed by a guy with a financial stake in advancing a car that is getting aided greatly by said "parity". Put any lipstick you want on that pig, but it is still a pig. To be blunt, you should have recused yourself from this debate from the very beginning. But you didn't.

Paragraph 2 above: Speaking only for myself, I do not think you are either a liar or self-serving. However, the APPEARANCE and PERCEPTION of self-serving conflicts of interest are all over this, and you are studiously ignoring this FACT. Andy, I am not advocating that anyone take their ball and go home. And I am anything but sour. I am pointing out the appearance of a BLATANT conflict of interest in this ongoing process to--in your words--achieve parity. And that APPEARANCE clouds any and all integrity this process may have. (by process, I mean the continued efforts to
remove what you term the 325's "unfair" advantage)

Paragraph 3 above: Here is what I bank on, hoss: my ability to see patterns and smell bullschit. I may be only an average driver, a mediocre racer, and a pathetic mechanic. But I am really, really good at seeing patterns & smelling manure. They saved my life on more than one occasion, and I have a bullet hole in my shoulder rather than my head to prove it.

I see the conflict of interest problem...and I see you studiously NOT addressing it...and I see a pattern, rightly or wrongly, which you are only accentuating with your voluminous comments.

And I have been trying to tell you that this situation smells to high heaven, rightly or wrongly, and thus corrupts any "high road" you may attempt to take with this decision. But you ain't listening...

You should have recused yourself from this long, long ago, Andy. Bank on THAT.

Air will actually "attach" to the opening of the restrictor inlet and be drawn into it from several yards in front of the car. You just need a clean shot of air at the head of the intake. Watch LMP cars VERY carefully in hot humid weather and you can actually sometimes see whisps of white air stream toward the intake near redline. I remember seeing it vividly on the Panoz LMP07 on it's first trip to Sebring. LMP cars still make giant power so I doubt once somebody comes up with a well designed intake these will hurt power much. It's more of just a pain in the ass until then.

The restrictors are made to limit the max HP capable, as it directly affects it. You can engineer the restrictor to be as efficient as possible, and there are some whacky ways to go about doing this. Ultimately though it will put a max capable/achievable HP to try to reach. Simple flowbench testing can provide this data. If you want to see some "interesting" approaches, looks at Fsae, as its one of the premiere places right now for restrictor development, all together millions and millions are being spent. 609cc inline 4 bangers making 100hp from a 20mm hole :) Biggest issue we found as the choke point, and I think the S54 would probably see a similar result from that small restrictor.

Andy, Andy, Andy...you are digging yourself deeper, hoss.

Paragraph 1 above: OK, Andy, I will not use those words. However, it does not change the appearance of a major conflict of interest, which you seem to be ignoring at all costs. "Parity" is being championed by a guy with a financial stake in advancing a car that is getting aided greatly by said "parity". Put any lipstick you want on that pig, but it is still a pig. To be blunt, you should have recused yourself from this debate from the very beginning. But you didn't.

Paragraph 2 above: Speaking only for myself, I do not think you are either a liar or self-serving. However, the APPEARANCE and PERCEPTION of self-serving conflicts of interest are all over this, and you are studiously ignoring this FACT. Andy, I am not advocating that anyone take their ball and go home. And I am anything but sour. I am pointing out the appearance of a BLATANT conflict of interest in this ongoing process to--in your words--achieve parity. And that APPEARANCE clouds any and all integrity this process may have. (by process, I mean the continued efforts to
remove what you term the 325's "unfair" advantage)

Paragraph 3 above: Here is what I bank on, hoss: my ability to see patterns and smell bullschit. I may be only an average driver, a mediocre racer, and a pathetic mechanic. But I am really, really good at seeing patterns & smelling manure. They saved my life on more than one occasion, and I have a bullet hole in my shoulder rather than my head to prove it.

And I have been trying to tell you that this situation smells to high heaven, rightly or wrongly, and thus corrupts any "high road" you may attempt to take with this decision. But you ain't listening...

You should have recused yourself from this long, long ago, Andy. Bank on THAT.

OK, I get it, the issue LOOKS like shizzle. But it isn't. I said in a previous post that myself and the Chairman (also an ITS driver) didn't vote, nor did we have to. I did also say (in the inerest of full disclosure, that would I have voted, it would have been in line with the committee based on facts, trends and a process I believe in as it pertains to IT as a class, not to one particular car.

There is nothing more I can do to try and convince you that this is being done on the up and up with honest intentions. If you don't think I am a liar, then I would think you would give me (and the ITAC and the CRB) the benefit of the doubt. But it is clear you are not that kind of guy. We may just have to see how it works out.

AB

Seth,

I never said BMW guys have endless pockets nor did i mean anything of that sort. My point on the competition adjustment for the BMW was that it is the less expensive of the two options being discussed here in this thread.

Adding more weight will only make YOU have to work harder to achieve the same performance that you can with a restrictor. It will make less work for YOU.

Racing is expensive...yes. I know this just as any other racer does. However, i think you can ask almost any IT guy and he will tell you that the IT classes have gotten a bit out of hand and have left some of the original intent of the class far behind in a pile of 1000 dollar a set Hoosiers. THis is why we have seen so many guys go to SM, SSM, SRX7, etc... in the past few years. These are the IT classes of today. IT is now moving to some sort of in between Improved Touring and Production class. I'm fine with that...if SCCA wants to go that way. Ill take my limited resources and buy a miata and have a great time there.

I just think per the current rules the 325 has been mis-classified in ITS. It is FP to the rest of the field's GP.

I will not take back anything i say about better drivers being blown away by money in BMW form however. I have seen it too many times with my own eyes. This says nothing about the deep pockets of BMW owners. It only speaks to the deep pockets of some people who CHOOSE to buy the best car in the class. They are smart about it. That's probably why they have the deep pockets in the first place. They do not want to spend their $40 grand on a 944 and finish 9th every weekend. I wouldnt either.


Brian,

I am fully aware of SCCA's policy that they will give you a place to race, but will not guarantee anything past that. I just feel as if a car may have been classified incorrectly as per the current rules. That is all.




Above all, i love ITS...my father started racing in it in 1984. I have grown up around S cars and hate to see the class become boring to drive in or watch.

Andy, I would really appreciate your response to this.

Cut Andy a break. He (and I) were attending our monthly 3+ hour conference call.

For some more information from the CRB: Look on ImprovedTouring.com in the Rules and Regs section under the topic:

"A word from the CRB on the recent changes..., Details on the SIR and the E36"

If you want to see some "interesting" approaches, looks at Fsae, as its one of the premiere places right now for restrictor development...

Yeah, all the F3 teams (where SIRs have been used for years) are calling the FSAE teams for advice.

a lot of ideas about ways to optimize an sir here, but unless i am missing something, i don't think many(any?) of them are legal in scca its. move the radiator? nope. smaller radiator? nope. get air from outside? nope. create an opening in the front of the car to allow a straight shot of air into the sir? nope. remove the headlight? nope. move or change the hfm? nope. maybe lmp or gtl cars can do those things, but we have to do something that includes an airbox, sir and airfilter in the stock one foot by 8in by 8in space behind the left headlight.

scca instituted a rule in its based on engineering theory and practice in other less restrictive classes. they should have actually tested the rule implementation in the target car first and then provided more than two weeks notice before requiring all bmw's that are racing to comply.

if a change had to be done, they could have used some basic customer relations / change management practices to avoid some of the backlash they brought onto themselves.
-work with the target audience
-provide well thought out and tested solutions
-educate the audience ("your getting an sir, go do the internet research yourself" does not fit in this model)
-provide a reasonable timeline for the change implementation

i served for years on the equivalent to the itac/crb for the j/24 international sailboat class. if we had done something like what scca has done we would have been keelhauled at the next regatta.

scca instituted a rule in its based on engineering theory and practice in other less restrictive classes. they should have actually tested the rule implementation in the target car first and then provided more than two weeks notice before requiring all bmw's that are racing to comply.

DITTOS

OK, I've been silent until tonight. This has turned into a witch hunt to burn Andy. Like most witch hunts, this one is based on wrong thinking.

Most of y'all know of me and I've met a few of you in person. I've been posting here since I bought my 328i 3 years ago. Most of y'all also know that I am also a member of the ITAC. Let me set some facts straight.

1) There is NO campaign to punish the E36. The fact is, the car was misclassified from day one.

2) I asked this very forum some time ago about the E36 325 and the E46 323. The consensus was that the E36 had more performance potential. Compare the weight of the E46 as run through our classification process and the E36 that never had been (don't have any idea how the 2850 was arrived at). By any measure the E36 should weigh more than the E46.

3) The ITAC is comprised of a broad spectrum of IT racers from geographically diverse locations. No one person is able to wield enough influence to get any rule suggested on their own. And all we do is make suggestions. The CRB makes the final decision. The ITAC unanimously suggested either a 27mm SIR or a 3100 lb classification weight. The CRB chose the SIR. Truth be known, the majority of the ITAC would have prefered the weight.

4) E36 drivers got a gift in the SIR. The weight would affect performance to a much greater degree than the SIR. The SIR will only affect the top end performance. All the torque will be there and the acceleration will be there (up to the power limit) and the braking will be there and the cornering will be unaffected. If the E36 had to weight 3100 lbs the entire peformance envelope would be affected. I was CLEARLY in favor of the weight. And I don't even race an RX-7.

5) The E36 was run through the classification process as was nearly every car in the ITCS. Many many cars have had weight adjustments and some reclassifications as a result. This was NOT part of an adjustment to one car.

6) While the ITCS indeed says that no car will be guaranteed competitiveness (and this hasn't changed), nothing precluded the ITAC to evaluate the classifications of every car in the ITCS.

7) For the sake of disclosure (in case anyone has missed it) I am building a 944 for ITS. That did not affect my recommendation for any car other than the fact I had more data on the 944 than any other member (that was not true when Chris Camadella was still on the ITAC). I voted for a weight reduction on many cars in ITS based upon our classification process.

8) There is NO mathematical formula for classifying a car in IT. We start with power to weight and adjust from there based on a number of factors that have been publicized more than once. You won't find numbers for these factors because they are somewhat subjective. They can vary from car to car. Before you cry foul and say that the E36 is carrying an unfair penalty here, let me tell you (and Andy will back me up), the 944 is carrying more adjustment weight than ANY car in the ITCS that has been run through the process (there are a handful of obscure cars that we don't even know if anyone even races that we didn't run through the process). My car will carry at least twice the adders that the E36 does.

Again, Andy is but one member of the ITAC. While he takes a very active role in the committee, he does not wield any more influence than any other member. We vote as a committee and I think all of us on the committee have been shot down at least once with a recommendation we have made. There is NO politics and no BS in the committee. It's a knowledgeable group covering a broad spectrum.

I know that incorporating the SIR and tuning for max performance will be a PITA. Timing could have been better, but this revamp of the category has been in the works since last summer and it has taken this long to come out. Timing sucks, but it could have been worse. Weight would have been easier to deal with in the short run, but worse in the long run. Weight would have been a major PITA in the long run.

Andy did not come here looking for a fight. In fact, I suggested to let it go. I felt it would just degrade to what it has become. He just wanted to answer questions and deal with bogus accusations of impropriety. He can take the heat. All of the members of the current ITAC have been very accessable. We have and will stand up and take the heat. We stand by our decisions. If we screw up, we'll admit it. Give Andy some credit for coming into what some might consider the "Lion's Den" to deal with these issue up front.

As for me, I will be here as always. I will be happy to answer questions as best I can, but if they are just venting and/or trying to back me into some corner, forget it. I won't answer questions regarding any formula for reasons I explained above (it doesn't exist). Other than that I will try to answer any serious questions along with Andy.

a lot of ideas about ways to optimize an sir here, but unless i am missing something, i don't think many(any?) of them are legal in scca its. move the radiator? nope. smaller radiator? nope. get air from outside? nope. create an opening in the front of the car to allow a straight shot of air into the sir? nope. remove the headlight? nope. move or change the hfm? nope. maybe lmp or gtl cars can do those things, but we have to do something that includes an airbox, sir and airfilter in the stock one foot by 8in by 8in space behind the left headlight.

None of those tricks will really have an impact anyway. The way an SIR works is that once the air flows to a certain point it goes supersonic and stalls. They will only flow so much air no matter what you do. Since airflow equals hp it's a matter of math to figure out hp from size or vise-versa.

scca instituted a rule in its based on engineering theory and practice in other less restrictive classes. they should have actually tested the rule implementation in the target car first and then provided more than two weeks notice before requiring all bmw's that are racing to comply.

I agree that the timing sucks but it certainly could have been worse. See above. This class revamp has been in the works for some time.

None of those tricks will really have an impact anyway. The way an SIR works is that once the air flows to a certain point it goes supersonic and stalls. They will only flow so much air no matter what you do. Since airflow equals hp it's a matter of math to figure out hp from size or vise-versa.

Geo...you know it only goes supersonic when you use one of these bad boys. Was that sarcastic enough for ya? :D

http://us.st11.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/rodi_1877_28931982

Geo...you know it only goes supersonic when you use one of these bad boys. Was that sarcastic enough for ya? :D

http://us.st11.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/rodi_1877_28931982

You know, you could put a hamster in the one on the left and get him running really fast, and then connect it to your drive train and add 1 hamsterpower.

You know, you could put a hamster in the one on the left and get him running really fast, and then connect it to your drive train and add 1 hamsterpower.

Lol, you're such a dork :stickoutt

I haven't really been following this all that much, other than on here and some minor things here and there. I did however, just read through the few messages on the ITForums about it and come to my Biggest question. Are there really 325s out there making 240+ HP in ITS??? Just a guess based on the new Theoretical power of 218-220 at the crank with the SIR.

Keep in mind, I have no intention of running ITS, too much BS and way to much rubbing for me to afford. But I do currently have a NonVanos 325 which granted is getting rather tired, but is only making 167 at the wheels or about (189 Crank) with the Conforti Intake and Chip. On the other hand I've heard of SCCA AutoX DSP cars making 197-205 at the wheels from the 2.8L., so about what they are saying an IT 325 would make with the SIR. And the last I had read the rules DSP is less restrictive on engine mods than IT.

I just find it a little far fetched that a Legal IT motor is making 20-30% more HP over stock. However, I have also heard numbers of 200+ HP for some of the RX7 motors as well.

Maybe I should skip my 2.8L swap and talk to Sunbelt and drop the $$$$$ for an 8K RPM 2.5.

Also, I'm not sure how all the weights are determined, but I do know that my semi stock (full interior, 4 point roll bar, 92 E36) weighs in at 2870 without the spare tire, so I figure pulling the rest of the interior, heat sheilds, etc, and finishing the cage would put my sub 2850 for the car itself.

Maybe someone Andy, Geo, could elaborate on some of the details about how the decisions were come to and possible where some of the Data came from. If I were planning to run in or were running in ITS, I would be much more receptive to this sort of change with some Hard Factual evidence/documentation, rather than just being told "Hey, you gotta run this 27mm restrictor thing, that we're just starting to use."

Matt,

Drop me an e-mail and I will re-hash the data for you.

AB

George, thanks for the verbal barrage. I appreciate your perspective.

Speaking only for myself, there was no witch hunt for Andy. He has stepped in it himself. And continues to make it worse.

Frankly, he should have recused himself from this ENTIRE process, from the beginning, as I have stated repeatedly here.

Instead, by remaining involved, he has, at best, permanently stained the credibility and validity of this decision and what led up to it.

Think about another example: the Supreme Court is set to hear a case involving Harvard University. One Justice used to teach there, and receives a lucrative pension from there. Should that Justice be involved in all deliberations of the case, influencing the other 8 Justices? Or should he/she recuse himself/herself from the ENTIRE case from Day One?

'Nuff said.

This situation stinks ot high heaven.

Oh, and one more thing: you say the 325 is misclassified? Well, then do th esmart thing and reclassify it, instead of this inappropriate charade. Duh!

George, thanks for the verbal barrage. I appreciate your perspective.

Speaking only for myself, there was no witch hunt for Andy. He has stepped in it himself. And continues to make it worse.

Frankly, he should have recused himself from this ENTIRE process, from the beginning, as I have stated repeatedly here.

Instead, by remaining involved, he has, at best, permanently stained the credibility and validity of this decision and what led up to it.

Think about another example: the Supreme Court is set to hear a case involving Harvard University. One Justice used to teach there, and receives a lucrative pension from there. Should that Justice be involved in all deliberations of the case, influencing the other 8 Justices? Or should he/she recuse himself/herself from the ENTIRE case from Day One?

'Nuff said.

This situation stinks ot high heaven.

Oh, and one more thing: you say the 325 is misclassified? Well, then do th esmart thing and reclassify it, instead of this inappropriate charade. Duh!

Do us all a favor and stop using my name. You don't belive anything I write, you don't know me, you don't know anything about the process, its people or anything really. You really come off as a sour guy who bases his reality on perception with no desire to LEARN. You refuse to see a problem and an honest attempt to fix it.

And yes, we all get the fact that you think the situation sucks, it was improper and I stained the whole thing beyond repair. That is your opinion and you are dead wrong. The fact you think that I (about 1/15th of the influence and 0% of the decision) influenced this so much that the BMW's have personally been tortured is REDICULOUS.

With regards to your last comment - reclassify it WHERE??? Duh!

I may be wrong with my opinion, Andy, but I am certainly not alone in it. To quote you from yesterday, "bank on that".

Dude...perception IS reality, especially when there is nothing to contradict said perception.

I have no desire to learn? BWHAHAHAHAA!!! That is priceless, Andy. Actually, it is more aptly applied to you. You are refusing to learn that your conflict of interest in this, and the appearance it creates, smells badly. You also, to quote you, "refuse to see a problem" with the integrity of this process. My Supreme Court example stands.

Now, you can backpedal and spin all you'd like, but it is what it is. Perception IS reality. And not "knowing" you has nothing to do with it. I would have the same perception if you were a close friend of mine.

I am not sure where I indicated a feeling that the BMW's are being "tortured". I did indicate that I believe the BMW's have been a long-term target for "competitive disadvantaging", and the involvement of a guy with a vested financial interest in one car that would be helped by such disadvantaging is inappropriate & unseemly, at best. You can whine all you want about this, but facts are facts, and perceptions are realities. And I think you darned well know it. Which explains your continued involvement in this thread/topic despite multiple promises that you were done here. You know what I am saying is true, and perhaps thou doth protesteth too much?

As for reclassifying the 325 where? Beats me...but I am sure, with all the classes in SCCA CR, all of the CRB brain trust could find an appropriate spot quickly. And that should have probably been ITAC's recommendation.

Oh, well: woulda coulda shoulda.

I typed up a huge response and then deleted it. This debate isn't worth my time. You are the reason good, honest volunteers leave their posts. We have endured worse than you, and we will continue to do our best for the SCCA as a whole.

I may post some of the e-mails I have gotten over the past 24hours from people who have been following this from other Boards...you will quickly understand how YOU are perceived.

AB

I typed up a huge response and then deleted it. This debate isn't worth my time. You are the reason good, honest volunteers leave their posts. We have endured worse than you, and we will continue to do our best for the SCCA as a whole.

I may post some of the e-mails I have gotten over the past 24hours from people who have been following this from other Boards...you will quickly understand how YOU are perceived.

AB

Wow...pointing out an immense conflict of interest in a big SCCA decision, and the appearance of impropriety it creates, is why good volunteers leave? Sorry, hoss: I call BS on that. I'd like to see evidence of this. And if it is true? What does that say about their ethics?

As for your 2nd paragraph, I really don't give 2 schits how I am perceived, Andy. I was not involved in the decision, I am not in a position of authority within SCCA, and I do not have a vested interest in ANY car in ITS. Unlike you.

And once again, you keep posting in this thread, despite your repeated vows not to. And again, I believe you know that I am right.

However, I will apologize to others here: it was not my intent for this to become a personal issue...and it really isn't (to me at least). Andy is trying ot portray himself as the victim here, when in fact his involvement--and NOT him as a person--is the real issue.

Again, my US Supreme Court example is 100% valid...and I notice that Andy has ignored answering the ethical question posed in it.

I typed up a huge response and then deleted it. This debate isn't worth my time. You are the reason good, honest volunteers leave their posts. We have endured worse than you, and we will continue to do our best for the SCCA as a whole.

I may post some of the e-mails I have gotten over the past 24hours from people who have been following this from other Boards...you will quickly understand how YOU are perceived.

AB

Im honestly glad that there are people that volunteer to take rants from people like this... With all this non-support towards the ITAC currently, I give full support behind their decision.

What the hell does his perception have to do with anything? You perceive the sky to be blue, does that mean you can't fly in it? They are two different things that have nothing to do with one another.

He didn't vote in the final decision to recommend this to the CRB... Hes not the only person making decisions, thats what boards are for. He builds race cars and sells them, sure, but dont you build race cars and hope to win races? Does that mean that you have a vested interest in protecting your wins because you fancy a certain marque?

Get on the point, the 325 is too much for ITS, Its been proven and there is enough data to warrant a change.

"with all the classes in SCCA CR, all of the CRB brain trust could find an appropriate spot quickly."

I like how one second they don't have a clue what they are doing and are all corrupt, the next second they have the ability to make clear, concise decisions. This shows how wishy washy your character really is. The second something of yours is in question GOD FORBID... but as long as it has your best interest, well then so be it...

Im honestly glad that there are people that volunteer to take rants from people like this... With all this non-support towards the ITAC currently, I give full support behind their decision.

What the hell does his perception have to do with anything? You perceive the sky to be blue, does that mean you can't fly in it? They are two different things that have nothing to do with one another.

He didn't vote in the final decision to recommend this to the CRB... Hes not the only person making decisions, thats what boards are for. He builds race cars and sells them, sure, but dont you build race cars and hope to win races? Does that mean that you have a vested interest in protecting your wins because you fancy a certain marque?

Get on the point, the 325 is too much for ITS, Its been proven and there is enough data to warrant a change.

"with all the classes in SCCA CR, all of the CRB brain trust could find an appropriate spot quickly."

I like how one second they don't have a clue what they are doing and are all corrupt, the next second they have the ability to make clear, concise decisions. This shows how wishy washy your character really is. The second something of yours is in question GOD FORBID... but as long as it has your best interest, well then so be it...

Hoo-boy. Over-react much?

Let's look at your post:

Para 1: Fine! That is your opinion, and it is just as valid as mine. FYI....I am not ranting. I am pointing out the appearance of a major conflict of interest in a big SCCA decision. You, sir, are ranting.

Para 2: When perception is reality, you begin to lose the faith of those you represent. If you cannot see just how important it is that major decisions like this be beyond reproach, I cannot help address an ethics deficit.

Para 3: You are spinning. Please see my Supreme Court example. In addition, if I built BMW race cars for a living and was on the CRB or ITAC when this topic came up, I would recuse myself from it in its entirety. That is called "not creating the appearance of impropriety" and is the kind of ethics that leaders are expected to have.

Para 4: Maybe so, maybe not. Again, this is your opinion, which is just as valid as mine. Regardless of its validity, the process has been besmirched to the point where there is a real & widespread perception of impropriety.

Para 5 & 6: I would like you to point out where I ever said they "don't have a clue what they are doing and are all corrupt"? Guess what? I didn't...but, in beginning to lose your cool by over-reacting, you are...um...stretching the truth to fit an agenda. Wonder why? In addition, your personal insult of "This shows how wishy washy your character really is" totally invalidates any points you might have legitimately made, and also calls into question why you are protesting so much & trying to besmirch the messenger here.

Seriously pal, you know how to spin a web, I'll give you that,

I read your supreme court example? gonna mention it a few more times, or no? I understand your proud of it... Good for you...

The facts are clear and have been stated,

Andy DID NOT VOTE that is a fact
The 325 when applied to the formulas that class an ITS car doesn't fit there

And more on a personal note, please enlighten me as to how that second fact is my oppion? It has data to support it...

I'm wondering something...Did the original restrictor not work at all?? And why not just make that one smaller? That would have saved alot of time and money for the people who have the current(last years) restrictor in place. I'm wondering how they came up with the new design vs just changing the size of the plate in the current setup? At the cost of about $20 vs who knows the cost of the new setup.:confused


-Rick

And more on a personal note, please enlighten me as to how that second fact is my oppion? It has data to support it...

Really? Maybe so, maybe not. Just as there is data to support the perception that a significant conflict of interest played a role in this decision.

I am aware that Andy did not vote. In the Supreme Court example, that justice didn't either...but was involved in all the deliberations.

I love all the spinning & backpedaling. I am sorry to say that it speaks volumes.

I'm wondering something...Did the original restrictor not work at all?? And why not just make that one smaller? That would have saved alot of time and money for the people who have the current(last years) restrictor in place. I'm wondering how they came up with the new design vs just changing the size of the plate in the current setup? At the cost of about $20 vs who knows the cost of the new setup.:confused


-Rick

The SIR's are designed to be a restriction yet only be a restriction on certain items or at certain rpms etc...

In theory, they are less of a 'restriction' than a solid plate just getting smaller.

Costly yes, but ultimtely better for the end user who is getting the restriction.

Get on the point, the 325 is too much for ITS, Its been proven and there is enough data to warrant a change.



snowmann, AB or Geo31, Post the evidence or STFU!

Mike

What data is there that shows that Andy's daily life (his business etc..) played a role in the decision? is there any? or is there a speculation that he might have had an incluence? Yes he was in a position to look out for his own neck. But do you know that he did so? 100%?

There is no maybe about the data on the car specs... its there, its concrete numbers that other cars get put through as well...

What data is there that shows that Andy's daily life (his business etc..) played a role in the decision? is there any? or is there a speculation that he might have had an incluence? Yes he was in a position to look out for his own neck. But do you know that he did so? 100%?

There is no maybe about the data on the car specs... its there, its concrete numbers that other cars get put through as well...


Oy vey. Look up "appearance" and "perception" in the dictionary & get back to us. Your playing coy routine is...um...transparent.

Net net: as in my Supreme Court example, he should have recused himself from day one. This is what leaders do. Instead, he remained in the debate all the way through, and many are now left with the perception that how he makes income may have played a role. Perception IS reality, whether this is what happened or not.

I can not make it more clear or blunt than this.

Oy vey. Look up "appearance" and "perception" in the dictionary & get back to us. Your playing coy routine is...um...transparent.

Net net: as in my Supreme Court example, he should have recused himself from day one. This is what leaders do. Instead, he remained in the debate all the way through, and many are now left with the perception that how he makes income may have played a role. Perception IS reality, whether this is what happened or not.

I can not make it more clear or blunt than this.

ap·pear·ance

The act or an instance of coming into sight.
The act or an instance of coming into public view: <CITE>The author made a rare personal appearance.</CITE>
Outward aspect: <CITE>an untidy appearance.</CITE>
Something that appears; a phenomenon.
A superficial aspect; a semblance: <CITE>keeping up an appearance of wealth.</CITE>
appearances Outward indications; circumstances: <CITE>a cheerful person, to all appearances.</CITE>per·cep·tion

1.The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
2.The effect or product of perceiving.
3. Psychology.
<LI type=a>Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving.Point?

Andy did not remain in the process all the way through, had he, he would have casted a vote, he did not Therefore your perception that is reality, is no longer reality, because it did not happen

Keep spinning...

:thanks:

I am not spinning, How can your perception become a reality, if it DIDNT HAPPEN

What data is there that shows that Andy's daily life (his business etc..) played a role in the decision? is there any? or is there a speculation that he might have had an incluence? Yes he was in a position to look out for his own neck. But do you know that he did so? 100%?

Well, let's see...transcipts of the meetings regarding this topic would certainly bear out what was said, by whom and certainly reveal the motivation of all involved.

Never produced and likely will not be so that they can say the "process is protected" COP OUT! Stand by your decisions, be a man.

There is no maybe about the data on the car specs... its there, its concrete numbers that other cars get put through as well...

what evidence where, you AB and Geo keep referring to this overwhelming evidence to support the decision to limit the 325 because it is an overdog,

POST THE EVIDENCE!

In the Cen Div, an RX7 set track records at nearly every track this year, even at Road America where the 325s supposed awesome power should dominate the RX7 based on the boards impression, at RA the RX7 knocked 2 seconds off the previous record, against BMWs with new max ITS motors and good drivers (1 a prior div champ).

again, if the board cannot post the evidence (of the process and that the 325 is an overdog) rather than the self serving statements made at improvedtouring.com, the whole process is suspect at best and really looks like a witch hunt to 325 owners regardless of what you think.

Alll the 325 owners in the Cen Div that I have talked to are strongly considering avoiding SCCA races in favor of BMW CCA or NASA even though the costs will be more, based on the way this was handled and the timing of it.

Mike

:thanks:

I am not spinning, How can your perception become a reality, if it DIDNT HAPPEN

Because we do not know it did or didn't happen, hoss. Neither you nor I do...but the appearance of impropriety is all over this.

It is very simple: He did not recuse himself. He remained in the debate. He influenced others. That is how it works. Again, the court example is the exact same thing. Would you trust the verdict if said Justice did not recuse himself/herself from day one? I know of very few people who would.

Because we do not know it did or didn't happen, hoss. Neither you nor I do...but the appearance of impropriety is all over this.

It is very simple: He did not recuse himself. He remained in the debate. He influenced others. That is how it works. Again, the court example is the exact same thing. Would you trust the verdict if said Justice did not recuse himself/herself from day one? I know of very few people who would.

Keep in mind Im not angry but enjoying the conversation...

The way I view it, Is that if said justice, or Andy did not vote... which did happen, (we are both agreeing on that correct?) Then there status is instantly lowered to that of anyone else. In other words, he has a large influence as a voting member (the actual vote being the influence) But once he chooses to not vote, I view his influence as the same as mine or yours on the ITAC.

The ITAC is composed of members from all over the United States. Do you really think that every member on the ITAC would be swayed because Andy sells parts for a certain marquee? *Edited... or even a majority of members?

Wouldnt this be the same 'influence' as a member of the ITAC racing in the series. So if any member owned a car in question he should remove himself from deliberations?

Maybe we should seek out a jury process for electing officials to the ITAC... Have people who have no connection to racing and are not affiliated with anything... Is that even viable?

The way I view it, Is that if said justice, or Andy did not vote... which did happen, (we are both agreeing on that correct?) Then there status is instantly lowered to that of anyone else. In other words, he has a large influence as a voting member (the actual vote being the influence) But once he chooses to not vote, I view his influence as the same as mine or yours on the ITAC.

The ITAC is composed of members from all over the United States. Do you really think that every member on the ITAC would be swayed because Andy sells parts for a certain marquee? *Edited... or even a majority of members?

Wouldnt this be the same 'influence' as a member of the ITAC racing in the series. So if any member owned a car in question he should remove himself from deliberations?

did he not say that this was a long drawn out process that began summer of last year or so? plenty of time to direct what evidence was needed, spin it to others, provide other evidence of how the poor RX7 owners are effected, move the discussion where he wanted it to go, etc. hopefully you can see what I am getting at and why the appearance of impropriety is all over this, even the timing of the effectiveness is suspect in the minds of many BMW owners.


Again, I say post the evidence, without it AB's claims of lack of influence are without merit.

Mike

Mike

The way I look at it is.... it could be worse. My biggest question would be will the CRB adjust the SIR if a full tilt engine does not make the magical 220hp? and with the race data "validation" like the ARRC we will see the full prep RX7 that was a bumper sticker on Chet's car this year advance ONE spot to first place, the less preped RX7's will move up some and the well preped e36 guys will do fine ( if any are left ).. The weight would have been bad. I dont blame Andy or Geo...... anyone who is a club member can apply for ITAC or CRB

Keep in mind Im not angry but enjoying the conversation...

The way I view it, Is that if said justice, or Andy did not vote... which did happen, (we are both agreeing on that correct?) Then there status is instantly lowered to that of anyone else. In other words, he has a large influence as a voting member (the actual vote being the influence) But once he chooses to not vote, I view his influence as the same as mine or yours on the ITAC.

The ITAC is composed of members from all over the United States. Do you really think that every member on the ITAC would be swayed because Andy sells parts for a certain marquee? *Edited... or even a majority of members?

Wouldnt this be the same 'influence' as a member of the ITAC racing in the series. So if any member owned a car in question he should remove himself from deliberations?

Maybe we should seek out a jury process for electing officials to the ITAC... Have people who have no connection to racing and are not affiliated with anything... Is that even viable?

You may be right, you may be wrong. My point, all along, is that, since he has a plain-as-day financial stake in the outcome of this decision, he should have recused himself entirely from Day One.

By not doing so, he inadvertantly called his own ethics into question, and cast a cloud (at best) over this drawn-out process & the decisions that have come out of this.

In addition, I echo the demand for the "proof" that this decision was warranted, given the FACTS posted above regarding the new ITS track records still being set by RX7's. Again, the ==perception== that this process & decision was enhanced by vested financial interests in RX7's is only exacerbated in light of this RX7 on-track information.

What say you to that?

Frankly, he should have recused himself from this ENTIRE process, from the beginning, as I have stated repeatedly here.
yes, you have repeated yourself to the point of becoming tiresome. I think you kicked Andy in the balls enough here on the appearance of impropriety issue. I think they have swelled to their maximum size, and more kicking is not going to do any more good.

I only say this because there are probably other issues to address while Andy still has the patience to be here.

'Nuff said!I wish that were true, but about ten more posts followed. Give it a rest, we all know where you stand and how you feel. Let's find another issue to beat to death, this one has stopped breathing.

Discussion is good. Endlessly repeating yourself after the point is made is not. Please continue discussing other points.

The data we have been using is all over the net. Here you go:

Estimates are used to determine HP in IT trim. Certain types of engines take to it, some don't. Most can, with a 100% legal effort, gain about 25% over stock hp. So, as an illustration:

189hp * 1.25 = 236.25

The I6 design has proven to do a little better. Dyno sheets from Z-cars and Bimmers have verified this.

Top of the line, built-to-the-hilt E36 325's make between 205 and 210whp (dynojet). We have received letters documenting this AND refuting it. One letter included his dyno sheets (195whp) but admitted to not having any CPU work done (chip or programmable fuel management). Using a conservative drivetrain loss factor of 18%, this would get us to ABOUT 237.8 crank HP. It is very resonable to assume that 240 crank hp is very acheivable based solely on this, not to mention the 205-210whp sheets we have seen on Sunbelt stuff.

So, with a strong confidence and data that the E36 can make over 240 crank hp in IT trim, what should it weigh? With a TARGET hp/weight in ITS of 12.8-12.9, the cars weight, before any 'adders' SHOULD BE very close to 3100lbs. This is to fit the performance envelope of ITS as the ITAC and CRB have it currently consituted. Each of the other IT classes have a target as well.

What are 'adders' you ask? They are SUBJECTIVE additions or subtractions of about 50lbs that we 'add' when something is out of the ordinary for a class. Some things we consider are brake size, drivetrain layout, suspension design, aero, etc. To exemplify: In some of the lower classes, most cars have unsophisticated strut-type suspsensions. If a car with the proper power to weight is a candidate, but has a double wishbone (or some other superior) design, it may get an additional 50lbs for that. Same for a RWD car in a predominantly FWD class, etc, etc. It is not a perfect system, nor is it a hard and fast formula, but it can be repeated and is defendable by anyone on the ITAC.

In the case of the E36, adding the 'adders' for things like large brakes compared to the class becomes mitigated by increased weight. The committees recommendation of 3100lbs was a process weight plus about half for an 'adder'. Just 100lbs more than the 15hp-less E46 323 as classified.

So you then have two choices, get run through through the process and weigh 3100lbs, or keep the current weight of 2850 and have to run the appropriate hp level. 2850/12.9 = 220 crank

Now we move on to the 2005 rules. Flat plate restrictors are flawed by design. They can be defeated by a variety of methods. If you don't spec the actual unmodified piece, people will engineer a solution around your goal. The SIR has all of this engineering in it already. It is sized by a formula that provides a ceailing on power but effects nothing else. You put a GTR motor in your ITS car, it will make 220hp. You put a motor in your ITS car that makes less than 220hp, THERE IS NO EFFECT. Read up on the technology, it is really cool stuff.

While I do sympathize that year-to-year changes are hard to swallow, the CRB is doing it's best. For 2005, the ITAC did NOT recommend the restrictor, as a matter of fact, it wasnt even on our list. With SIR technology coming into acceptance within the SCCA, the ITAC gave it to the CRB as an option to a 'corrected' weight. They chose the SIR.

All this can be found sporatically on the IT site and a handfull of ITAC members frequent that site for a variety of reasons. We are always happy to debate and defend the recommendations. If a decision doesn't go our way, it is at the very least, our goal to understand and support the CRB, while making the members aware of the thought processes that went into a decision.

I hope this helps you all understand the thought processes behind the mayhem. You may not agree but I hope you can at least see the big picture we are trying to address.

AB

Disclaimer: All newly classified cars or cars considerd for re-class get run through this same process.

Pete, I will post what I choose to post, thank you. And none of it has kicked ANYONE in the balls...unless posting FACTS is somehow offensive to you.

Frankly, I do not care whether Andy has the "patience" to remain here or not. He is not a god, and we do not need to kiss his ass. He demands we trust his integrity, while his actions say something else entirely. Leaders' behavior should always be above reproach. Seems you may have a lower standard, Pete.

Snowmann is avoiding this issue entirely and instead trying to justify the situation by (a) calling my character into question, (b) claiming the Andy's total involvement in the long process did not affect the outcome, (c) claiming that Andy's financial self-interest is a valid factor in ITAC deliberations, and (d) claiming ignorance at how perception could become reality in this situation.

And neither of them has deighned to address the real justification for this SIR decision, especially in light of the continued track records still being set by the RX7, and not the 325. They claim the "facts" support the decision, but have not deemed it necessary to post said "facts".

Now, Pete, if you would rather attack the messenger on all of this, go right ahead. but I am not going to cease & desist until I get some answers. If the Admins want to close this thread, so be it.

EDIT: Andy has posted some tech info above, with a lot of numbers in it. However, on first reading, it does not seem to address the questions raised about the RX7's continued success here:

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5752147&postcount=94

Pete, I will post what I choose to post, thank you. And none of it has kicked ANYONE in the balls...unless posting FACTS is somehow offensive to you.

Now, Pete, if you would rather attack the messenger on all of this, go right ahead. but I am not going to cease & desist until I get some answers. If the Admins want to close this thread, so be it.

Facts are not offensive, nor is your right to post them. Nor am I attacking you or saying you are wrong, or even defending Andy. But you have gotten so worked up over this I seem to be reading the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over. It's not the content of your posts, it's their repetitiveness, which you readily admit by saying you have said so "repeatedly."

My point is that there is lots to discuss here beyond the appearance of impropriety issue. And since I've said it twice, I won't repeat it again.

I'm not trying to quell discussion, so don't try to make it sound like I am.

Pete, I will post what I choose to post, thank you. And none of it has kicked ANYONE in the balls...unless posting FACTS is somehow offensive to you.

Frankly, I do not care whether Andy has the "patience" to remain here or not. He is not a god, and we do not need to kiss his ass. He demands we trust his integrity, while his actions say something else entirely. Leaders' behavior should always be above reproach. Seems you may have a lower standard, Pete.

Snowmann is avoiding this issue entirely and instead trying to justify the situation by (a) calling my character into question, (b) claiming the Andy's total involvement in the long process did not affect the outcome, (c) claiming that Andy's financial self-interest is a valid factor in ITAC deliberations, and (d) claiming ignorance at how perception could become reality in this situation.

And neither of them has deighned to address the real justification for this SIR decision, especially in light of the continued track records still being set by the RX7, and not the 325. They claim the "facts" support the decision, but have not deemed it necessary to post said "facts".

Now, Pete, if you would rather attack the messenger on all of this, go right ahead. but I am not going to cease & desist until I get some answers. If the Admins want to close this thread, so be it.

EDIT: Andy has posted some tech info above, with a lot of numbers in it. However, on first reading, it does not seem to address the questions raised about the RX7's continued success here:

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5752147&postcount=94

Those said facts are one item, and Also those facts are in the previous year, which had only a flat plate style restrictor which as we all know can be manipulated. There hasn't been an event on the newly mandated rule so that instance in my oppion is thrown out. Just to throw it out there as well... Were those BMW motors full prep? And Were the Rx7's rule abiding winners? Another thing to ponder

Instead of edit above to discuss on-track performance, I will post here.

On-track performance is a rediculously slippery slope when used as a primary data point to class cars. There are SO many variables to consider. Tires fresh? Track temp? Driver skill? Car prep level? Ambiant air temp? Humidity? Track condition? Run groups? The list can go on and on. Track records are held by many different makes in ITS, not just BMW's and RX-7's. What level of competition is there? How deap are the fields? How well prepped are the cars? Are the track records even accurate or is one or two a slip up? Are the cars legal?

In New England, most of the records are held by RX-7's (2 imparticular). There are no to-the-limit E36's up he