The Use of SIRs in IT

Joe, this statement is incorrect. I am not trying to use SIRs to launch ITU. ITU is needed for the long term health of IT, in my opinon, and was on the table before SIRs came up. I used it to support an ITU in the context of discussing SIRs, but we're not 100% certain that SIRs are going to be in IT. At least most of us are not 100% certain.

I'm an advocate of a consistent IT rules set that is applied to the cars in IT without special allowances for certain cars. Maybe it is the scientist in me that likes consistency and logical order in the nature of things. In any event, the process the ITAC uses to class the cars was applied to all the cars in IT. Many adjustments were made and one car, only one car, was selected for special treatment. This one car was run through the process and would have weight added to it according to the model. But that was not done. Instead, it was decided that an untried technology in IT would be used to acheive parity instead of a simple weight solution.

This, my friend, is an inconsistancy in the application of the process and what a large number of people are upset about (and I do understand that the ITAC recommended weight as predicted but it was not chosen by the CRB). Yours truly included. I don't care for the SIR, for sure, but the selective application of the process is what gets my goat.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Ron, you are incorrrect about timing, You have no idea how long the SIR has been being talked about for this car. I know haow long the IT what ever class has been.
You would have is not fix a problem with the least offensive technology out there? Weight is the worst thing you could do here. I would have rather seen the car declassifed rather than throw that much weight based on extra cost to the competitior. This was not done to beat up the BMW. I do agree with one thing you have said. selective. If it were me I would have applied the SIR to any car tht warranted it. The question I ask is can the supra actually get down to 2800lbs. I know the Z32 won't.

You seem to want to make it personal like I am kicking your dog or something. That is not the case I just don't agree that more classes are the answer to the problem if there is a problem. I have sent in many ideas to the CRB over the years and they have agreed on some and not others i certinly don't feel like they are kicking my dog.

Last time I am gonna say this also. The SIR is proven technology. You are a scientist formula SAE has used them for a very long time to the best of my knowledge. Many many sanctioning bodies have used them for years. NASTRUCK is using a version of the technology on the super speedways with great sucess. Please don't tell me they are not proven technology. My statement of SIR's being here to stay are based on fact. the technology is looking to be applied where ever and when ever needed by the information I have been given.

Ron, I am nobody. I build cars for a living and I stay plugged into what is happening because I have to. I am certainly not trying to kick your dog jut trying to point out some things that I know as fact in some cases and as a real likely hood from being around for 18+ years.
 
Joe,

You seem to be one of the only ones that think that it's not feasible to get a new IT class added. I'm not really sure what you're basing this on. I get the feeling that you don't want to accept a new class, as it would mean, in your mind, that SIRs were a failure. I think that's also one of the reasons why you think that a technology that hasn't turned a lap in IT yet, is "here to stay". You seem to have 'hitched your wagon' to SIRs, and will see it through, regardless. I'm really curious as to why you so strongly feel that SIR technology is such a magic bullet. And while I agree that close racing is important, I don't think you're going to excite a whole lot of people to go race cars when you tell them you're going to choke 25-50 hp off of the stock output of their cars. To me, I just don't see the point.
[/b]
Click to expand...

No,

Joe is not the only one who thinks that a new IT class will not fly. Check out the thread that I started on my regional board looking for others open to push for a new class:

ITR Proposal on Cal-Club Forum

Secondly, after looking at the Prod rules I came to the realization that any time costs are cut, first thing to go is displacement/power. Don't get me wrong, I'd support IT(?) but even if it's placed in the National rules, my local region Doesn't have to implement because it's a regional class. I think the best route is to make the SIR work, heck a 2800 lb Z3 with an SIR in ITS would in all probability work better for me to have a place to race other than ITE.

James
 
Joe,

You seem to be one of the only ones that think that it's not feasible to get a new IT class added. I'm not really sure what you're basing this on. I get the feeling that you don't want to accept a new class, as it would mean, in your mind, that SIRs were a failure. I think that's also one of the reasons why you think that a technology that hasn't turned a lap in IT yet, is "here to stay". You seem to have 'hitched your wagon' to SIRs, and will see it through, regardless. I'm really curious as to why you so strongly feel that SIR technology is such a magic bullet. And while I agree that close racing is important, I don't think you're going to excite a whole lot of people to go race cars when you tell them you're going to choke 25-50 hp off of the stock output of their cars. To me, I just don't see the point.
[/b]
Click to expand...
See there you go Bill Making things up. No where have you seen me advocate knocking 25 to 50 HP off of stock HP...You keep trying to spoon feed that idea. In some cases you may be limiting a car to its sotck flywheel HP but one would expect that car to be pretty fun to drive at that number. Z32 makes 222 stock flywheel HP and I know for a fact it won't get under 3000lbs without the driver. My guess is without SIR 3500 lbs With Sir I would bet 240HP about 3200 lbs would bring it in line. Maybe have some adders I don't know the wole process. Maybe Andy or somebody could run the numbers on this car.

And no Bill I have not fully hitched my wagon to anything. What I am for is less classes and more competition, You cannot tell me that is wrong.
The one class I could see being added especially with SIRs is an AWD and Turbo class. I believe this could and should be done ASAP and it should not be limited to just factory turbo cars. SIR's can regulate the HP on a turbo the same way.
 
I keep feeling when I read my buddy Joe beating his SIR drum that he thinks like Dave Finch, if he says it loud enough and long enough it will be true. He forgets this is a member club. And not his. And where the SIR could be a useful tool, it is just to expensive to apply in club racing. But like Joe, this is just my feeling. Except, as an actual racer, and not someone spending someone elses money, it may have more wieght. Having now spent many hours on the dyno to maximize cams and ECU performance, I can now imagine the cost this will put on the average racer. Like racing isn't enough of a financial burden. But hey you guys read how much fun the GTL guys are having and look at this as your future if Joe and his kind get there way to pick your pockets. Chris Howard :D
 
I keep feeling when I read my buddy Joe beating his SIR drum that he thinks like Dave Finch, if he says it loud enough and long enough it will be true. He forgets this is a member club. And not his. And where the SIR could be a useful tool, it is just to expensive to apply in club racing. But like Joe, this is just my feeling. Except, as an actual racer, and not someone spending someone elses money, it may have more wieght. Having now spent many hours on the dyno to maximize cams and ECU performance, I can now imagine the cost this will put on the average racer. Like racing isn't enough of a financial burden. But hey you guys read how much fun the GTL guys are having and look at this as your future if Joe and his kind get there way to pick your pockets. Chris Howard :D
[/b]
Click to expand...
Look Chris, I could take a return whack at you but your friends tell me your not that bad a person. How bout you just quit stalking me and accusing me of things that aren't true. I have been racing on my own dime for 18 years and and have spent my fair share of money fom IT to GT2. You know nothing about me so just leave it alone. I am trying to be reasonable so how bout you do the same.
 
See there you go Bill Making things up. No where have you seen me advocate knocking 25 to 50 HP off of stock HP...You keep trying to spoon feed that idea. In some cases you may be limiting a car to its sotck flywheel HP but one would expect that car to be pretty fun to drive at that number. Z32 makes 222 stock flywheel HP and I know for a fact it won't get under 3000lbs without the driver. My guess is without SIR 3500 lbs With Sir I would bet 240HP about 3200 lbs would bring it in line. Maybe have some adders I don't know the wole process. Maybe Andy or somebody could run the numbers on this car.

And no Bill I have not fully hitched my wagon to anything. What I am for is less classes and more competition, You cannot tell me that is wrong.
The one class I could see being added especially with SIRs is an AWD and Turbo class. I believe this could and should be done ASAP and it should not be limited to just factory turbo cars. SIR's can regulate the HP on a turbo the same way.
[/b]
Click to expand...


Ok Joe, so I guess you would see cars like the E36 M3 as outside the performance envelope for ITS. And I honestly don't understand where you come up w/ those numbers for the Z32. Darin told us that the 3rd gen. Supra is pretty much where it should be weight-wise. That's 3380# w/ a stock output of 200hp. That's 10% shy of a Z32. That would put the Z32 North of 3700# w/o an SIR. But this stuff is a red herring. If you want to run a car at its stock hp (or less), how many people will want to run it below what a mild Stage I street tune (chip, K&N filter, cat-back) would get them?

You keep talking about how many other series have had success w/ SIRs. Againg, not really applicable to Club Racing or IT. NASCAR CTS is pretty much a spec class, and everybody has to run the same thing. Doesn't matter how much it cuts power, it cuts it for everybody the same amount, the cars weigh the same, and the suspension is all the same. You can't say that because it makes for tight competition in a series like that, that it's going to work in a class that has such a wide range of mfgs, drivetrain configurations, and technology. Same holds true for things like FIA GT and ALMS. You're talking major-league, full-tilt efforts who spend more on a test day than most IT folks spend for a full season (or two) of racing. Again, not an applicable model. Show me a club series that's used SIRs effectively, on a wide range of configurations and technology, and I'll start to consider it as viable in IT. As of now, it's no where near that.

Don't get me wrong, I'd support IT(?) but even if it's placed in the National rules, my local region Doesn't have to implement because it's a regional class[/b]
Click to expand...

James,

I'm not sure where you come up w/ this information. While I haven't researched it, I guess it's possible for a Region to exclude classes that are listed in the CGR from Regional races, but it sure as hell sounds odd to me. I'm not convinced that it would be allowed. And if it is, that's a pretty scary thought. Imagine this scenario. You've got a poorly subscribed class, say 3-5 cars per race (yeah, I know, sounds like most of Prod). You then have a group of say 10-15 drivers that want to start Spec Puddlebee. They start lobbying the Regional BoD to create a class for them. They'll bring 5x the number of cars to a race that that poorly subscribed class does. Given what you've said, the Regional BoD could drop that poorly subscribed class in favor of Spec Puddlebee. I don't really see that happening, and I imagine that they would get some major heat from Topeka as well. We'll take your money, but we're not going to let you race a car that's listed in the GCR? Not likely.
 
Ok Joe, so I guess you would see cars like the E36 M3 as outside the performance envelope for ITS. And I honestly don't understand where you come up w/ those numbers for the Z32. Darin told us that the 3rd gen. Supra is pretty much where it should be weight-wise. That's 3380# w/ a stock output of 200hp. That's 10% shy of a Z32. That would put the Z32 North of 3700# w/o an SIR. But this stuff is a red herring. If you want to run a car at its stock hp (or less), how many people will want to run it below what a mild Stage I street tune (chip, K&N filter, cat-back) would get them?

You keep talking about how many other series have had success w/ SIRs. Againg, not really applicable to Club Racing or IT. NASCAR CTS is pretty much a spec class, and everybody has to run the same thing. Doesn't matter how much it cuts power, it cuts it for everybody the same amount, the cars weigh the same, and the suspension is all the same. You can't say that because it makes for tight competition in a series like that, that it's going to work in a class that has such a wide range of mfgs, drivetrain configurations, and technology. Same holds true for things like FIA GT and ALMS. You're talking major-league, full-tilt efforts who spend more on a test day than most IT folks spend for a full season (or two) of racing. Again, not an applicable model. Show me a club series that's used SIRs effectively, on a wide range of configurations and technology, and I'll start to consider it as viable in IT. As of now, it's no where near that.
James,

I'm not sure where you come up w/ this information. While I haven't researched it, I guess it's possible for a Region to exclude classes that are listed in the CGR from Regional races, but it sure as hell sounds odd to me. I'm not convinced that it would be allowed. And if it is, that's a pretty scary thought. Imagine this scenario. You've got a poorly subscribed class, say 3-5 cars per race (yeah, I know, sounds like most of Prod). You then have a group of say 10-15 drivers that want to start Spec Puddlebee. They start lobbying the Regional BoD to create a class for them. They'll bring 5x the number of cars to a race that that poorly subscribed class does. Given what you've said, the Regional BoD could drop that poorly subscribed class in favor of Spec Puddlebee. I don't really see that happening, and I imagine that they would get some major heat from Topeka as well. We'll take your money, but we're not going to let you race a car that's listed in the GCR? Not likely.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Bill its called a restricted regional and its done all the time.

As far as SIR's go we are just gonna have to disagree. You are set on being against them and that's your choice. The numbers for the Z32 come right from factory service information and specifications.

Bill , You guys keep changing the game, First you say the technology is unproven and when provided with proof you wanna say "well show me a club" Formula SAE uses SIR's to control performance do a search read up on it, I think you will be educated far better than I can.

As far as the number of people that would race basic stock stuff and enjoy it.....UM SM started out that way and the numbers were huge. I think there are just as many people out there that want to run a close race with other cars as there are those that feel the need to stage 1 it or anything else. A smart car salesman once told me that "theres an ass for every seat" Don't over look those that could be brought to the table at a little different level. I would gladly race a Z32 tuned to fit into a good race that could still be driven on weekends. Funny cause I remeber a time when you could do that.
 
Joe,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Formula SAE essentially a spec class? As far as restricted regionals go, and I admit that I have no experience w/ them, do they pick and choose specific classes w/in a category, or do they eliminate some categories completely?
 
Joe,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Formula SAE essentially a spec class? As far as restricted regionals go, and I admit that I have no experience w/ them, do they pick and choose specific classes w/in a category, or do they eliminate some categories completely?
[/b]
Click to expand...


Bill, I believe formula SAE is a complete designers deal and I can't honestly say but will look into the engine size rules but I am positive it is not a spec class.

As fr restricted regionals go. you could have EP and no other prod classes or you could have ITB and not other IT classes It is based on what classes are popular in the area. Nothing worng with it if you have limted time and are trying to max the program. We see it a lot out here with regional/nationals.

Normally you will always find an ITE or SP class if your normal class is not offered in a given race.
 
Okay, I've been semi retired from ITS for a while now, and I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but my problem with this whole deal is the application of any rules after the initial classification to a class whose intent is to give you a relatively cheap place to race with no guarantee of competitiveness. It's not having stable rules that cost money. Reward weight, SIR's, whatever you want to do to maintain competitiveness and a good show should be reserved for classes where a good show is the product- like World Challenge, where all the competitors enter the class with full understanding of that intent. In ITS if a competitor is saavy enough to pick the right car to build, or migrates to the "hot" car after a few years of something else, it doesn't quite feel fair to me to slam some new rules on him 3 years after he builds a car. FOR IT. It seems to me it would be just a fair to say to everybody in car B to just buy car A. THat's your level playing field. If I had a BMW right about now I'd be some kind of major league pissed. IF the SIR had been in place from day 1 I would not be pissed. Make the damn rules and winners will gravitate to what wins. Change the rules and it's just a tax on the people with the smarts and means to win. FOR IT.

That said, as an engineer I'd always pick a restrictor or SIR over weight provided the affect on competitiveness was the same. Cheaper for me the racer, but more expensive for the sanctioning body to figure out.

Just my humble opinion.
 
FSAE does use an SIR concept. They also have a displacement limit of 600cc (if it hasn't changed in the last year or so), so in general, most teams work to maximize displacement to maximize torque (as Ron mentioned). Also, there are very few other restrictions on engine design. A few years back, I remember a team that machined their own engine block out of a solid aluminum billet...

Another major issue here that is IT specific- Current intake modification allowances will mean that SIRs will have very different effects in different vehicles, even such as the same engine in a different body style...

Personal opinion- I believe that SIRs have a place, but not in IT. I have done a TON of research on SIRs with the work that I was doing with the B/D Production group, and I think they can work, but you need freedom and latitude to optimize the combo, and the IT Philosophy doesn't allow for it.
 
Matt - Very interesting. I also conversed with an engine engineer in the UK who has used SIRs and he felt they'd be difficult to do in a class with many different engine designs and displacements since, just as you say, they would have different effects on different motors. IT is definitly not a 600cc spec class.

Joe - I don't have a dog.
 
As someone that has worked with SIR in FSAE I wouldn't consider them a good example of anything. Show up at the competition sometime and look at the variations in HP numbers produced (and measured) shows that the use in FSAE merely provides more of a design challenge than a useful control on power. And asI have said SEVERAL times before the use of SIR in FSAE and other classes are all classes where either major engine component changes are alloed for optimization or it is a fixed package that everyone must run. IT doesn't fit either of those categories.
 
Okay, I've been semi retired from ITS for a while now, and I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but my problem with this whole deal is the application of any rules after the initial classification to a class whose intent is to give you a relatively cheap place to race with no guarantee of competitiveness. It's not having stable rules that cost money. Reward weight, SIR's, whatever you want to do to maintain competitiveness and a good show should be reserved for classes where a good show is the product- like World Challenge, where all the competitors enter the class with full understanding of that intent. In ITS if a competitor is saavy enough to pick the right car to build, or migrates to the "hot" car after a few years of something else, it doesn't quite feel fair to me to slam some new rules on him 3 years after he builds a car. FOR IT. It seems to me it would be just a fair to say to everybody in car B to just buy car A. THat's your level playing field. If I had a BMW right about now I'd be some kind of major league pissed. IF the SIR had been in place from day 1 I would not be pissed. Make the damn rules and winners will gravitate to what wins. Change the rules and it's just a tax on the people with the smarts and means to win. FOR IT.

That said, as an engineer I'd always pick a restrictor or SIR over weight provided the affect on competitiveness was the same. Cheaper for me the racer, but more expensive for the sanctioning body to figure out.

Just my humble opinion.
[/b]
Click to expand...
You have a good point with the classing as it has been in the past KT. The "car to have" at any given time gets built in large numbers and makes a relic of everything else in the class. It has happened in every IT class over the years and always causes a big drop in car counts until something else comes along. The ITAC now has the tools in place to try not to create class killers. As all these new cars come in at the process weights, how do you justify leaving the "pre-process" cars at such a disadvantage? How about the ones with a big advantage? If the BMW was a new car that people were just building for the class and got the rug pulled--you would have a legit gripe. You got quite a few years at the top--money well spent. Long term stability of the classes are more important than one make--mine included. I will build a new car as soon as something worth building is classed. All cars will at some point fall off the pointy end--just not overnight.
 
kt you're right on the money about IT philosophy,no guarantees to win or be competetive.
i remember when the rx7 came out that was the end of the z car,the rx7 was the car to have to win.now something new comes around the bmw is the car to have if you want to win.maybe next year another car would be classed and that would be the winning car and the bmw would be obsolete.
p.s. i don't have a dog in the hunt also. i run it7.i help carlos build his car that's it . we just want to have fun.
 
kt you're right on the money about IT philosophy,no guarantees to win or be competetive.
i remember when the rx7 came out that was the end of the z car,the rx7 was the car to have to win.now something new comes around the bmw is the car to have if you want to win.maybe next year another car would be classed and that would be the winning car and the bmw would be obsolete.
p.s. i don't have a dog in the hunt also. i run it7.i help carlos build his car that's it . we just want to have fun.
[/b]
Click to expand...
The new process is supposed to end this "car of the year" we have had in the past. I guess the philosophy of IT is what needs changed. I am not for endless comp adjustments by any means, but at least give more than one make a shot. I spend my money, prep my car, and race like anyone else. If you think only one car should be able to win--get rid of the other classifications and lets have spec whatever and be done with it. It is my hope that those days are gone. Some tracks will be better for different cars but at least give more a chance. Those that won before will still be up front--just might be a little harder. :P
 
and you are right in this new age of scca . i agree with comp. adjustment but not as drastic as implimented from 56 FP to 27 SIR ???? try that on your car and tell me you'll lose 10 hp.just be fair.
 
and you are right in this new age of scca . i agree with comp. adjustment but not as drastic as implimented from 56 FP to 27 SIR ???? try that on your car and tell me you'll lose 10 hp.just be fair. [/b]
Click to expand...

Steve,

1st off, the 56mm FP had 2 major flaws. The rules were written poorly so that they could be defeated. The other flaw was that it was sized way too big. Back to back dyno runs have shown a legal FP to take off 4hp.



2nd point. The technology of the SIR is so 'efficient' that the sizing does seem extreme - but also remember that a bunch more hp has to be taken away in order to hit ITS target numbers. The CRB will either size the SIR to back into the process or use the process and get to a new minimum weight - like if the car was classed in ITS today. The car was misclassed at 2850 unrestricted. Haven't heard ANYONE who disagrees with that. The CRB either has to limit hp, or raise the weight.

AB
 
The new process is supposed to end this "car of the year" we have had in the past. I guess the philosophy of IT is what needs changed. I am not for endless comp adjustments by any means, but at least give more than one make a shot. I spend my money, prep my car, and race like anyone else. If you think only one car should be able to win--get rid of the other classifications and lets have spec whatever and be done with it. It is my hope that those days are gone. Some tracks will be better for different cars but at least give more a chance. Those that won before will still be up front--just might be a little harder. :P
[/b]
Click to expand...

Ok if they suffocate the Beemer enough that it cant win as much, do we go back to the "spec RX7" in ITS?? I would think they need to add weight or an SIR to the RX7 to equalize it with the other cars there...When the Beemers are MIA (and in pre Beemer day) RX7's dominated. How is that now equalized?? anyone?
 
ITS was subjected to the process as well as the rest of the classes, and many cars in ITS were adjusted. Some were just moved out of the class, as they were too far off the target to be adjusted. The Z car is right there on the class target, as are some other cars. Several Honda models look like great options, and if the E36 works out to be a top dog, as opposed to an overdog, there could be a lot of tight races. Don't forget about the E46 and the E30 Bimmers too.

The RX-7 is a good all around racer, with great support, and there are lots of them, so they will be up front often, but I doubt it will be all RX-7 all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top