Geartronics Shift System

[Daryl DeArman]

One more time for review, with some emphasis added:

D.All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Mechanical gear
shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and
similar devices are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear
changes are prohibited.


I definitely believe the above rule needs a rewrite. I won't call it a clarification, because if it makes something legal that wasn't legal before that is a rule change. If it makes something illegal that was legal before, that is a rule change.

To me, some things are crystal clear:

The gear changes must be initiated by the driver.
Pre-selected gear changes are prohibited.

I don't believe anybody, on either side of this debate, could successfully argue the geartronics system doesn't satisfy those two sentences.

Where it gets fuzzy to my uneducated, but very logical and analytical brain, is what does "direct-acting" apply to? I'm thinking that requirement only applies to electrical solenoids. While that may not have been the intent of the author....I don't give a rat's a&& about intent. Write what you mean, mean what you write.

Some may argue that the geartronics system is direct-acting. Frankly, I don't believe anything that is designed to take an input from the driver and then decide whether to act on it or not is direct acting. My mind is very clear about that.

Most importantly, the subjective word "similar". What are "similar devices"? The fact that "similar devices" are specifically allowed opens up a huge can of worms. Clearly there are devices other than those systems specifically named that are allowed as long as the shift is "initiated" by the driver and it does not pre-select the gear changes.

The air ram acts directly on the shifter. So where is the problem? The geartronics system shifts when the driver asks for the shift, unless the downshift is dangerous to the engine.

The problem lies in that word "UNLESS". The fact that the system is designed to determine whether or not to act on the drivers' input means it isn't direct acting. However, it's not clear to me that the air systems are required to be direct-acting.

Please tell me how you are quite sure the geartronics system is "direct acting". How do you define direct acting?

The fact that purely mechanical systems sometimes fail to complete a shift is irrelevant as the systems aren't designed to reject certain shifts.

Claiming the system isn't an advantage over those without it and is purely a safety measure, I believe weakens' your arguments.

I'm afraid the SCCA is going to come back with the ol' standby "Rule is adequate as written" and not make any changes to it at all.

[starkejt]

Please tell me how you are quite sure the geartronics system is "direct acting". How do you define direct acting?

It would seem that some people define "direct acting" as "acts directly on the transmission." Others define it as "acts without intentional intercession." If the latter is what the rule writer(s) meant, I think it is a poor choice of words. If people really object to the safety feature because of that interpretation of the rules, then okay. But I can tell you that in practice, the only time it comes up is an accidental click of the downshift paddle. If you are worried that it is always stepping in to help the driver in the braking zone, it isn't. The reality is that the car is slowing too fast for the downchanges to exceed 13,000 unless the driver is starting his shifts immediately upon getting on the brakes, which would be foolish in any regard.

[Wren]

Wren, I actually I love what you guys did. I simply want it clarified. I want to be CERTAIN before I spend the $$$ for tooling. Either way I will be satisfied. I would have done it on our FB conversions if I thought it was legal. Just goes to show you that I am not as creative as I thought.

I think that you can feel pretty comfortable given the latest COA ruling that anything outside the chassis is bodywork combined with Brandon and Tom being allowed to do it. Of course it looks like the CRB is going to get involved, so common sense and competence will undoubtably go right out the window. Gomberg was only capable of saying, "that bodywork should be illegal, that's not what the rule means," when he was pressed, he couldn't even say what the rule should mean.

[Daryl DeArman]

If you are worried that it is always stepping in to help the driver in the braking zone, it isn't.

That would depend on how much assistance the driver needs

I'm not a fan of such intervention, but that hasn't affected my opinion on whether or not the system is legal. I think it is, just don't know that it should be. IMO, a little late, and unsportsman-like to change the rule to make them illiegal.

My concern is the trickle down to other classes and how to write/enforce a rule to not allow it and/or "similar" systems in F5/600.

As long as the system allows the customer to input data such as the gear ratios into the program, then this system isn't only to keep the motor from zinging over 13K.

[Wren]

Where it gets fuzzy to my uneducated, but very logical and analytical brain, is what does "direct-acting" apply to? I'm thinking that requirement only applies to electrical solenoids. While that may not have been the intent of the author....I don't give a rat's a&& about intent. Write what you mean, mean what you write.

Some may argue that the geartronics system is direct-acting. Frankly, I don't believe anything that is designed to take an input from the driver and then decide whether to act on it or not is direct acting. My mind is very clear about that.

Before this thread, I would never have considered that "direct-acting" applied to the electronics that went with any system. That is a reference to only the physical part of the system to me, and I do believe that every rule has an intent.

Most importantly, the subjective word "similar". What are "similar devices"? The fact that "similar devices" are specifically allowed opens up a huge can of worms. Clearly there are devices other than those systems specifically named that are allowed as long as the shift is "initiated" by the driver and it does not pre-select the gear changes.

Another good point. Even if someone tortured "direct-acting" into banning something that prevents over-reving the engine, it would be far less tortuous to say that the geartronics air shifter is a similar device and the existence of the similar device part of the rule can allow air shifters that are similar, but not quite the same.

Please tell me how you are quite sure the geartronics system is "direct acting". How do you define direct acting?

Physically acting on the transmission, it has nothing to do with electronics.

Claiming the system isn't an advantage over those without it and is purely a safety measure, I believe weakens' your arguments.

But it is purely a safety measure. What else could it be? It has been explained repeatedly by the people that use the system and the guy that built the system that any of the imagined ways to use the shift rejection feature are silly and won't be a faster way around the track.

[Wren]

When the verbiage was borrowed from DSR to write the FB rules, the phrase "Electronic assisted gear change mechanisms ... are prohibited." was deleted (it had caused Sterward actions in the past and was an on-going source of confusion), and the present verbiage chosen to emphasize that purely mechanical shifting was not required.

Just so that this lie doesn't go unadressed and gain traction...there is no such rule in the DSR rules.

Here is the DSR rule in it's entirety:

All gear changes shall be initiated by the driver. Mechanical gear
shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and similar
devices are permitted. Electronically controlled differentials and devices
that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited.

Maybe that is your confusion?

[starkejt]

That would depend on how much assistance the driver needs

I'm not a fan of such intervention, but that hasn't affected my opinion on whether or not the system is legal. I think it is, just don't know that it should be. IMO, a little late, and unsportsman-like to change the rule to make them illiegal.

My concern is the trickle down to other classes and how to write/enforce a rule to not allow it and/or "similar" systems in F5/600.

As long as the system allows the customer to input data such as the gear ratios into the program, then this system isn't only to keep the motor from zinging over 13K.

For F5/600, more explicit wording about what is prohibited should be easy to come up with.

I understand what you're saying about being able to fudge the gear ratio numbers. Customers are allowed to input gear ratios (though the system came with those already set), calibrate the gear position sensor with the barrel position of each gear, and calibrate full throttle and idle on the throttle position sensor. That's it other than a few buttons to test the air actuators, etc. I suspect fudging the gear ratio numbers would cause a whole host of problems with all the other parameters that the customer has no access to. I'd be happy to try it with your engine, though!

[R. Pare]

Reading all this this morning has been rather amusing, to say the least. It looks like the circle jerk portion has been rejected and everyone has settled on the circular firing squad portion.

Bodywork issue:

Read the "in case of conflict" statement at the beginning of the Glossary - it states that the Glossary definition is the controlling definition unless it conflicts with a particular GCR section, in which case the specific GCR section is the control.

While we know what the "intent" was for the 50mm max allowance, the wording used did not define what the "body" was it referred to, so per the GCR, we are left with being controlled by the Body definition in the Glossary. Sorry, but you have no choice on that since there is nothing stated in the FB rule as a definition of "Body" that conflicts with the Glossary definition.

In this case, as per the Glossary definition, the horizontal pieces everyone is arguing over are in fact "body" and therefore satisfy the rule requirement in their original guise since it is impossible for something to stick out past itself.

Since the "intent" was to not allow the undertray to stick out so far as to possibly constitute a danger were another car to interlock wheels with you, to accomplish that intent, it needs to be reworded only slightly.

Just state that for the full length of the side undertrays between the tire edges, the side undertrays may not stick out 25mm past the vertical sides of the side radiator enclosures (or the vertical sides of the cockpit side panels if a central radiator is employed Swift DB6 style), and that the vertical sides must be X inches tall at a minimum.

To satisfy that wording, all anyone would have to do is attach a fiberglass tunnel the same X minimum height to the top of the undertrays with the inboard edge attached to the current sidepod skin, making an enclosure akin in looks to the old Ralt RT1 and RT2 sidepods.

Without the word "vertical", all that would be necessary to satisfy the rule if the undertrays were disallowed as "body" would be a simple skin attachment to its top that was integral to the sidepod enclosure skin.

Without the word "enclosure" used in the rule, all that would be necessary to to satisfy both the written rule and the intent would be a vertical fin X high running along the outboard end within the 50mm limit. However, while it would fulfill the intent, such a simple stand-alone fin would most likely not be very effective as a wheel-climbing preventative since it would fold over pretty easily.

My advice would be to also state the rule intent at its beginning.


Shifters:

First you need to define what "direct acting" means, if that phrase is desired to stay in the rule.

If it means that the switch that the driver pushes has to be wired directly to the solenoid, that the use of an intermediary power relay would be illegal.

If it means that the signal cannot be intercepted by semi-conductor electronics, then anything other than "dumb" electrical wiring would be illegal.

Personally, I think that not allowing a system that would reject a call for a shift if it determines that it would result in an over-rev would be pretty dumb and self-defeating from a cost perspective - all it takes is one missed shift causing an over-rev and blown engine resulting in a crash to more than pay for the system.

My advice for what it is worth is to just drop the "direct acting" phrase from the rule - the other 2 phrases - driver initiation and no pre-selected shifting - give you what you want without preventing driver from spending money on an 'insurance policy" that he feels is warranted.

How to police the "no pre-selected' portion is an entirely different matter that would need to be determined separately.

[mario_zgb]

Mario - Did you see, or more appropriately HEAR the vid of the first lap?
The shifter is amazing. I actually have to go down 5 gears in T5, due to the few cars ahead running the inside (slower) line in there.

video is awesome Coop... i noticed rear end snapping on you on exits... was it like that throughout the whole race or only when tires were cold?

[Stan Clayton]

Just so that this lie doesn't go unadressed and gain traction...there is no such rule in the DSR rules.

Once again you overstate your case, Wren., but one of these days I gotta learn that Jedi mind trick...you know the one, "These are not the 'droids you're looking for."

First of all, the quote I provided was a direct cut & paste from an older GCR that was one of the sources we used to write the FB rules several years ago. I never said that it is the current DSR rule.

Second, you keep ignoring the 900 lb gorilla on the sofa...namely, my and others' concerns that having a computer program intercept and possibly reject the driver's command to shift renders the system non direct-acting, irrespective of whether the shifter is connected directly to the output shaft.

[Daryl DeArman]

But it is purely a safety measure. What else could it be?

A performance advantage over those without it. However, there isn't a rule that prohibits everybody from using one. So, all it has done is raise the bar. I believe it is being touted as a safety measure to gain acceptance from the masses.

It has been explained repeatedly by the people that use the system and the guy that built the system that any of the imagined ways to use the shift rejection feature are silly and won't be a faster way around the track.

That doesn't make it true, however, I understand the reasons for touting it as so.

It's very simple to use the device for a larger performance advantage than its' current use is yielding. The better the driver, the smaller the advantage. If the system is around in FB for much longer, I'm certain that the many knowledgeable folks utilizing it will discover ways to utilize it for more performance.

[starkejt]

Once again you overstate your case, Wren., but one of these days I gotta learn that Jedi mind trick...you know the one, "These are not the 'droids you're looking for."

First of all, the quote I provided was a direct cut & paste from an older GCR that was one of the sources we used to write the FB rules several years ago. I never said that it is the current DSR rule.

Second, you keep ignoring the 900 lb gorilla on the sofa...namely, my and others' concerns that having a computer program intercept and possibly reject the driver's command to shift renders the system non direct-acting, irrespective of whether the shifter is connected directly to the output shaft.

First of all, let me apologize for allowing Schwietz on the sofa. He has been told repeatedly to stay off the furniture. Second, didn't Wren address that when he disputed your definition of "direct acting?"

[starkejt]

A performance advantage over those without it. However, there isn't a rule that prohibits everybody from using one. So, all it has done is raise the bar. I believe it is being touted as a safety measure to gain acceptance from the masses.



That doesn't make it true, however, I understand the reasons for touting it as so.

It's very simple to use the device for a larger performance advantage than its' current use is yielding. The better the driver, the smaller the advantage. If the system is around in FB for much longer, I'm certain that the many knowledgeable folks utilizing it will discover ways to utilize it for more performance.

Have you any experience with the system to know that doing so is as easy as you say? Because I believe it would be much harder than you think.

[Dave Gomberg]

I think that you can feel pretty comfortable given the latest COA ruling that anything outside the chassis is bodywork combined with Brandon and Tom being allowed to do it.

CoA decisions are binding only until the end of the year in which they are issued.

Of course it looks like the CRB is going to get involved, so common sense and competence will undoubtably go right out the window.

Thank you for your vote of confidence.

Gomberg was only capable of saying, "that bodywork should be illegal, that's not what the rule means," when he was pressed, he couldn't even say what the rule should mean.

Thank you for mis-representing what I said. (This was, by the way, at the June Sprints.) What I said is that I knew what was intended, but that with the unfortunate Technical Glossary definitions we have it would be difficult to write that intent clearly and unambiguously.

Dave

[Stan Clayton]

Second, didn't Wren address that when he disputed your definition of "direct acting?"

Not that I've seen.

[starkejt]

CoA decisions are binding only until the end of the year in which they are issued.
Thank you for your vote of confidence.

Thank you for mis-representing what I said. (This was, by the way, at the June Sprints.) What I said is that I knew what was intended, but that with the unfortunate Technical Glossary definitions we have it would be difficult to write that intent clearly and unambiguously.

Dave

At the runoffs, when Schwietz's car was being inspected in the Tech shed regarding the protest, what did you say to the inspector (Joe Griffin, IIRC) when he repeatedly tried to point out what was the floor and what was the bodywork under the rules?

[starkejt]

Not that I've seen.

Perhaps I misread. Speaking for myself, I don't think it is clear that your definition of "direct acting" is the correct one. May I ask, did you write the rule in question? At first you said you had to go back and reread it to see the "direct acting" verbage, but then you seem to imply you had a hand in writing the rules. Or am I misconstruing?

[Stan Clayton]

Perhaps I misread. Speaking for myself, I don't think it is clear that your definition of "direct acting" is the correct one. May I ask, did you write the rule in question? At first you said you had to go back and reread it to see the "direct acting" verbage, but then you seem to imply you had a hand in writing the rules. Or am I misconstruing?

I both had to reread the direct-acting verbiage in the GCR after reading Jerry's post above, as well as had a hand in writing the rules several years ago.

IIRC (and I may not), the idea of Formula 1000 was first proposed by Bill Maisey here on Apex in Dec '05. The suggestion of a motorcycle-powered formula class also appeared in an op-ed in SportCar magazine about the same time. (You may recall that m/c engines were permitted in FC up through the 2005 Runoffs.)

Within a few months Mike Beauchamp and a few others had roughed out a draft set of rules and posted links to them here. As the formula rep on the CRB at the time, it fell to me to shepherd the proposal along through the rules-making wickets. I was not the primary scribe, and honestly don't recall who wrote the exact verbiage of the shifter rule, but there was extensive discussion and argument about how loose or tight folks wanted the rule to be.

Hope that clarifies things a bit. There is lots more info in old posts here on Apex, but you'll have to do the digging.

[starkejt]

I both had to reread the direct-acting verbiage in the GCR after reading Jerry's post above, as well as had a hand in writing the rules several years ago.

IIRC (and I may not), the idea of Formula 1000 was first proposed by Bill Maisey here on Apex in Dec '05. The suggestion of a motorcycle-powered formula class also appeared in an op-ed in SportCar magazine about the same time. (You may recall that m/c engines were permitted in FC up through the 2005 Runoffs.)

Within a few months Mike Beauchamp and a few others had roughed out a draft set of rules and posted links to them here. As the formula rep on the CRB at the time, it fell to me to shepherd the proposal along through the rules-making wickets. I was not the primary scribe, and honestly don't recall who wrote the exact verbiage of the shifter rule, but there was extensive discussion and argument about how loose or tight folks wanted the rule to be.

Hope that clarifies things a bit. There is lots more info in old posts here on Apex, but you'll have to do the digging.

Thanks, I read those posts back then and am aware of the history. Just wanted to hear more about your level of involvement in the rules creation.

[nulrich]

While we know what the "intent" was for the 50mm max allowance, the wording used did not define what the "body" was it referred to, so per the GCR, we are left with being controlled by the Body definition in the Glossary. Sorry, but you have no choice on that since there is nothing stated in the FB rule as a definition of "Body" that conflicts with the Glossary definition.

In this case, as per the Glossary definition, the horizontal pieces everyone is arguing over are in fact "body" and therefore satisfy the rule requirement in their original guise since it is impossible for something to stick out past itself.

Since the "intent" was to not allow the undertray to stick out so far as to possibly constitute a danger were another car to interlock wheels with you, to accomplish that intent, it needs to be reworded only slightly.

I didn't realize that was the intent of the original rules, I assumed it was to prevent aero development of the undertray. Is the safety issue of significant concern? I haven't seen accidents where a protruding undertray has caused problems, but I have only a very small sample.

Given that the safety issue has been made irrelevant by solutions like Brandon's, it might just make sense to add a definition of "bodywork" in the FB rules that includes undertrays and floors, and let people make them as wide as they like within the allowable overall width.

Otherwise, if you want to limit "underhang" then maybe language like this could be used:

Undertrays may extend a maximum of 50 mm past primarily vertical body sides or sidepods in any lateral section.

or

The total lateral width of any bodywork less than 20 mm in vertical thickness may not exceed 100 mm in any lateral section between the complete front and rear tires.

Nathan

[Daryl DeArman]

Have you any experience with the system to know that doing so is as easy as you say? Because I believe it would be much harder than you think.

No, but I do have an education in electronics and electrical engineering. I also know that since the system is allowing the customer to define the gear ratios that code cracking isn't required.

I don't know how easy you think I think it is, nor do I know how hard you believe it is.

I do know that there are plenty of smart folks in the racing world. There are plenty of competitive folks. Given the desire, it will be a larger performance advantage sooner rather than later.

[Wren]

Once again you overstate your case, Wren., but one of these days I gotta learn that Jedi mind trick...you know the one, "These are not the 'droids you're looking for."

First of all, the quote I provided was a direct cut & paste from an older GCR that was one of the sources we used to write the FB rules several years ago. I never said that it is the current DSR rule.

Old GCRs are outdated and meaningless(see 1.2.1). I don't think there is anything reasonable about trying to extrapolate the meaning of the FB rules from an old rule in an old GCR that doesn't even apply anymore to the class where you are trying to pull it from. I actually thought it was pretty important for people to know that the rule from another class that you want to apply to FB didn't actually exist.

Second, you keep ignoring the 900 lb gorilla on the sofa...namely, my and others' concerns that having a computer program intercept and possibly reject the driver's command to shift renders the system non direct-acting, irrespective of whether the shifter is connected directly to the output shaft.

I have addressed it repeatedly in that I reject your definition of direct acting. Direct acting refers to acting directly on the transmission of the car. You haven't even proven that direct-acting applies to air shifters.

You have completely failed to address why the geartronics device could not be considered a "similar device" to an air shifter since it is an air shifter.

A performance advantage over those without it.

I think we have consistently maintained that not shoving the rods out of the front of the block and setting the car on fire is an advantage.

It's very simple to use the device for a larger performance advantage than its' current use is yielding. The better the driver, the smaller the advantage. If the system is around in FB for much longer, I'm certain that the many knowledgeable folks utilizing it will discover ways to utilize it for more performance.

And I'm certain they won't, as are the people who have used the system. Every lap of every track is going to be different. Trying to fudge gear ratios and other things is pointless versus having the driver develop a rythym for their laps and then make a decision based on the conditions. The software is not going to make a better decision than a good driver. Ever.

CoA decisions are binding only until the end of the year in which they are issued.

But, they are certainly good for getting a feel for where the rules lie and what they really mean. Do you think that the COA will create a new definition for bodywork next year?

Thank you for your vote of confidence.

No problem.

Thank you for mis-representing what I said. (This was, by the way, at the June Sprints.) What I said is that I knew what was intended, but that with the unfortunate Technical Glossary definitions we have it would be difficult to write that intent clearly and unambiguously.

Dave

This was absolutely not at the June Sprints. I was told about your conversation with Joe, but I am not referencing that one since I didn't see it myself. I am referencing your conversation with one of the competitors in the tech shed, at the runoffs.

Not that I've seen.

I have my definition of direct-acting and you have yours. Even if yours turns out to be true, the geartronics shift rejection should be allowed under the "similar systems" part of the rule.

At the runoffs, when Schwietz's car was being inspected in the Tech shed regarding the protest, what did you say to the inspector (Joe Griffin, IIRC) when he repeatedly tried to point out what was the floor and what was the bodywork under the rules?

Perhaps I misread. Speaking for myself, I don't think it is clear that your definition of "direct acting" is the correct one. May I ask, did you write the rule in question? At first you said you had to go back and reread it to see the "direct acting" verbage, but then you seem to imply you had a hand in writing the rules. Or am I misconstruing?

[R. Pare]

I didn't realize that was the intent of the original rules, I assumed it was to prevent aero development of the undertray. Is the safety issue of significant concern? I haven't seen accidents where a protruding undertray has caused problems, but I have only a very small sample.

There was a long discussion way back when the rules were being written about the potentials - mainly cut tires, but it included thoughts about a tire being able to climb atop such an extension - but not much if anything on concerns about aero advantages that I recall. At the time, various construction scenarios were put forth concerning how one could comply with the wording being used, which I believe also included Brandons method.

[starkejt]

No, but I do have an education in electronics and electrical engineering. I also know that since the system is allowing the customer to define the gear ratios that code cracking isn't required.

I don't know how easy you think I think it is, nor do I know how hard you believe it is.

I do know is that there are plenty of smart folks in the racing world. There are plenty of competitive folks. Given the desire, it will be a larger performance advantage sooner rather than later.

If you put in incorrect gear ratios to try to gain some advantage, your downshifts would be problematic at best. The system is trying to achieve the appropriate rpm for the lower gear given the road speed. My point was that just changing the gear ratio numbers isn't likely to have the effect you want. You're right, given the desire, one could circumvent any system. I don't anticipate anyone in this class either cracking the software or building their own GCU or piggyback unit.

[Brandon Dixon]

I'll make a couple of comments. No intention of "flaming the fire".

Here is the rule as it appears in the GCR:

[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Mechanical gear [/FONT][FONT=Univers]shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and [/FONT][FONT=Univers]similar devices are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear c[/FONT][FONT=Univers]hanges are prohibited.[/FONT][/FONT]

The "direct-acting" wording is on the second item on the list. So the analogy that Stan started would need to be more like:
"Engine covers, Purple wings, sidepods and shock covers are not permitted."

Can I have yellow sidepods with the restriction above? How about Purple engine covers? If there was an intent one way or the other, it seems to be lost now.


Secondly, what does direct-acting mean in the context of electric solenoid shifters, air shifters, or other similar devices? Can I use a relay on an electric solenoid? Can the relay be controlled by an electronic box that has functionality like a timer to control the length of time that the relay is closed?

One of the "auto-blip" and SWOL systems that is in wide use in DSR and some FB competitors use, has functionality in it to prevent upshifts that are "too soon". In other words, there is a time period that must elapse before a second upshift. If people have a problem with the Geartronics system then this system should raise similar questions.

Allowing people to use anything other than an entirely mechanical linkage for the shifter and then trying to apply words like "direct-acting" or limiting the kinds of controls in the electronics seems like a very tricky thing to do.

If the ability of the Geartronics system to reject downshift requests that would over rev the engine causes an issue with the rules, then I'm sure that Geartronics can/will remove that feature. Will it make a difference? Not so much to me. I didn't request a shift that was rejected during the Runoffs and I think that I'll be O.K. without that safety net. Someone like Sal, that is trying to sell cars and get more people into our class, needs this functionality. He mentioned at the Runoffs that he was shopping for another engine because of damage from a downshifting over-rev by a potential customer that was allowed to drive a car....

[Dave Gomberg]

But, they are certainly good for getting a feel for where the rules lie and what they really mean. Do you think that the COA will create a new definition for bodywork next year?

The CoA does not write rules nor modify them. Only the CRB (and occasionally the BoD) does that.

This was absolutely not at the June Sprints. I was told about your conversation with Joe, but I am not referencing that one since I didn't see it myself. I am referencing your conversation with one of the competitors in the tech shed, at the runoffs.

That was in the context of the CoA FA decision. My advice was that Tech not pursue the issue on their own. As it turned out, a competitor chose to protest. Neither the CoA FA decision nor the SOM FB decision at the Runoffs mean that I don't know the intent of the current rule any less now than I did in June.

Dave

[starkejt]

The CoA does not write rules nor modify them. Only the CRB (and occasionally the BoD) does that.

That was in the context of the CoA FA decision. My advice was that Tech not pursue the issue on their own. As it turned out, a competitor chose to protest. Neither the CoA FA decision nor the SOM FB decision at the Runoffs mean that I don't know the intent of the current rule any less now than I did in June.

Dave

Can you please advise where competitors may find what the intent of a rule is, given that we can't read your mind?

Are you also going to tell us what you said to Tech after the protest was filed? Some of us might have been standing close enough to hear you, but others may not have been.

[Daryl DeArman]

The software is not going to make a better decision than a good driver. Ever.

When a driver is discovered that never makes a mistake we'll agree

[Jnovak]

There have been several references to the shifter rules for the 600cc MC powered cars in F500. To clarify things here is the exact wording of the proposal.

D.All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Only mechanical gear shifting mechanisms are allowed. This shall include cables, rods, or other mechanical linkage systems. Other assisted shifting mechanisms are specifically not allowed. This shall include electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and similar devices are NOT permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are also prohibited.

E. The clutch assembly is unrestricted except that the clutch engagement system shall be operated solely by driver input and shall be mechanical or hydraulic in nature. The clutch must be operated by the drivers hands or feet and there shall be no operation of the clutch by any assisted method.

I am not stating that this is the rule I want for FB. Just trying to show that a rule can be written that cannot (I think) be mis-interpreted.


Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Brandon Dixon]

There have been several references to the shifter rules for the 600cc MC powered cars in F500. To clarify things here is the exact wording of the proposal.

D.All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Only mechanical gear shifting mechanisms are allowed. This shall include cables, rods, or other mechanical linkage systems. Other assisted shifting mechanisms are specifically not allowed. This shall include electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and similar devices are NOT permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are also prohibited.

E. The clutch assembly is unrestricted except that the clutch engagement system shall be operated solely by driver input and shall be mechanical or hydraulic in nature. The clutch must be operated by the drivers hands or feet and the shall be no operation of the clutch by any assisted method.

I am not stating that this is the rule I want for FB. Just trying to show that a rule can be written that cannot (I think) be mis-interpreted.


Thanks ... Jay Novak

This is a bit of a thread hijack, but do you want to allow or dis-allow the commercially available SWOL and auto-blip systems in F600?

I think that F600 and the F600 rules are great. I think that F600 has a chance to attract new faces to SCCA club racing. I applaud Jay and I hope to enjoy watching the growth of F600.

[Jnovak]

This is a bit of a thread hijack, but do you want to allow or dis-allow the commercially available SWOL and auto-blip systems in F600?

I think that F600 and the F600 rules are great. I think that F600 has a chance to attract new faces to SCCA club racing. I applaud Jay and I hope to enjoy watching the growth of F600.

Brandon, I did not get a chance to chase you down at the Runoffs to congratulate you on your fine race & Championship. CONGRATS!

Any kind of assisted shifting is NOT allowed period. If you can get it out of gear SWOL is fine but no ignition interupts etc are intended to be allowed. The driver has to control everything including the throttle blip. Come to the ARRC to see our driver controlled throttle blipper. Invented by Dan Robinson (the D.R Blipper)

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Rennie Clayton]

That's not what direct acting means.

The system that Rennie described rejects shifts under certain conditions. I don't see any clause in there that a mechanical based rejection is ok but a electronic rejection is not. You're making things up.

Direct acting is generally accepted to mean "Acting directly, as one part upon another, without the intervention of other working parts." The Geartronics system admittedly intervenes in the shifting process to prevent / modify driver-initated actions based on pre-selected parameters. The reason behind the behavior is not relevant - it's the behavior that's in question, not the result.

Go back and re-read my post, Wren; I said no such thing that the system rejected shifts under certain conditions. That shift system always attempted to physically actuate the shifter when the button was pressed. Always. Your system, on the other hand, intercepts the shift request, then actively makes a decision to ignore the request based on a set of pre-defined parameters. Comparing the two is just equivocating.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Mike B]

I didn't realize that was the intent of the original rules, I assumed it was to prevent aero development of the undertray. Is the safety issue of significant concern? I haven't seen accidents where a protruding undertray has caused problems, but I have only a very small sample.

Nathan is correct. The intent was to limit undertray downforce but to allow currently produced (at the time) cars in the class to help it grow (Speads, Gloria.) If safety was a concern, it wasn't discussed in much detail.

Just state that for the full length of the side undertrays between the tire edges, the side undertrays may not stick out 25mm past the vertical sides of the side radiator enclosures (or the vertical sides of the cockpit side panels if a central radiator is employed Swift DB6 style), and that the vertical sides must be X inches tall at a minimum.

This is what we intended.



Sorry for the interruption, back to your dead horse beating.

[starkejt]

Brandon, I did not get a chance to chase you down at the Runoffs to congratulate you on your fine race & Championship. CONGRATS!

Any kind of assisted shifting is NOT allowed period. If you can get it out of gear SWOL is fine but no ignition interupts etc are intended to be allowed. The driver has to control everything including the throttle blip. Come to the ARRC to see our driver controlled throttle blipper. Invented by Dan Robinson (the D.R Blipper)

Thanks ... Jay Novak

For F600, if you don't want the ignition interrupt (flatshift) systems, why not specifically prohibit them by name in addition to the wording you already have?

Many of us saw the DR Blipper at the Cat National and were very impressed by the blipper and the smoothness of the paddles.

[Rennie Clayton]

One of the "auto-blip" and SWOL systems that is in wide use in DSR and some FB competitors use, has functionality in it to prevent upshifts that are "too soon". In other words, there is a time period that must elapse before a second upshift. If people have a problem with the Geartronics system then this system should raise similar questions.

Brandon,

You've got a point, and that's precisely what I've been arguing in this thread vis-à-vis shifting systems which intervene on behalf of a driver to prevent / modify the driver-requested shift action. I strongly suspect that the rule maker's intent was not to allow these types of decision-making systems, however the rules are so poorly executed that it allows all kinds of funny business in reality.

Also, it's worth noting when comparing to DSR equipment, that DSR is not a restricted class as FB is. Was there really no doubt in anybody's mind about the permissibility of systems like this? Speaking only for myself, my immediate reaction is basically "ok - sketchy but permissible by the skin of its teeth".


Cheers,
Rennie

[Daryl DeArman]

For F600, if you don't want the ignition interrupt (flatshift) systems, why not specifically prohibit them by name in addition to the wording you already have?

It is my opinion that rules throughout the GCR sections that apply to restricted classes, sections where it says "If it doesn't say you can, you can't" should leave out all of the "prohibited" language.

Example: If you say "you can't do anything we don't tell you that you can do". Then say, "you can do A, B, and C. Z is prohibitted." It may open reasonable arguments that something from D to Y is allowed.

Just the opinion of one picking nits.

[Wren]

That was in the context of the CoA FA decision. My advice was that Tech not pursue the issue on their own. As it turned out, a competitor chose to protest. Neither the CoA FA decision nor the SOM FB decision at the Runoffs mean that I don't know the intent of the current rule any less now than I did in June.

Dave

No, it was very specifically in connection with one of the protested cars and their bodywork. It happened in the tech shed and I was standing right there while you hemmed and hawwed about what the rule was supposed to mean and couldn't tell the competitor. You just kept telling them that you couldn't say what the intent of the rule was and that their car was illegal.

Tech wasn't going to pursue it because they were arguing with you about what was bodywork. You are standing on your own out there.

There have been several references to the shifter rules for the 600cc MC powered cars in F500. To clarify things here is the exact wording of the proposal.

D.All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Only mechanical gear shifting mechanisms are allowed. This shall include cables, rods, or other mechanical linkage systems. Other assisted shifting mechanisms are specifically not allowed. This shall include electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and similar devices are NOT permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are also prohibited.

E. The clutch assembly is unrestricted except that the clutch engagement system shall be operated solely by driver input and shall be mechanical or hydraulic in nature. The clutch must be operated by the drivers hands or feet and there shall be no operation of the clutch by any assisted method.

I am not stating that this is the rule I want for FB. Just trying to show that a rule can be written that cannot (I think) be mis-interpreted.


Thanks ... Jay Novak

I've only talked to one person who drove an F600, but one of the first things they did was complain about how hard it was to get the shifts in.

Any kind of assisted shifting is NOT allowed period. If you can get it out of gear SWOL is fine but no ignition interupts etc are intended to be allowed. The driver has to control everything including the throttle blip. Come to the ARRC to see our driver controlled throttle blipper. Invented by Dan Robinson (the D.R Blipper)

Thanks ... Jay Novak

If I am entered as an FC, will I have standing to come protest your hand controls? I don't see a provision in any of the rules for a hand controlled throttle? Won't this take a case by case exception?

Direct acting is generally accepted to mean "Acting directly, as one part upon another, without the intervention of other working parts." The Geartronics system admittedly intervenes in the shifting process to prevent / modify driver-initated actions based on pre-selected parameters. The reason behind the behavior is not relevant - it's the behavior that's in question, not the result.

That only definition is fine with me, but it can only reasonably apply to the physical parts of the system. Every air shifter or other shifter is going to have some other intervening parts like relays, timers, or microprocessors unless you are going to join the group that thinks that the driver must operate quarter turn ball valves to use an air shifter and short wires across a battery to operate an electric solenoid? Then there is the "similar system" argument.

Go back and re-read my post, Wren; I said no such thing that the system rejected shifts under certain conditions. That shift system always attempted to physically actuate the shifter when the button was pressed. Always. Your system, on the other hand, intercepts the shift request, then actively makes a decision to ignore the request based on a set of pre-defined parameters. Comparing the two is just equivocating.

you said there are conditions it won't shift under and you knew what they were. I don't particularly care what it attempted to do, only what it did.

You've got a point, and that's precisely what I've been arguing in this thread vis-à-vis shifting systems which intervene on behalf of a driver to prevent / modify the driver-requested shift action. I strongly suspect that the rule maker's intent was not to allow these types of decision-making systems, however the rules are so poorly executed that it allows all kinds of funny business in reality.

The rules makers wanted to prevent people from hurting their engines? Unlikely.

[Rennie Clayton]

That only definition is fine with me, but it can only reasonably apply to the physical parts of the system. Every air shifter or other shifter is going to have some other intervening parts like relays, timers, or microprocessors unless you are going to join the group that thinks that the driver must operate quarter turn ball valves to use an air shifter and short wires across a battery to operate an electric solenoid? Then there is the "similar system" argument.

Why, exactly, can it only reasonably apply to the physical parts of the system? That's just arbitrary side-stepping.

I agree with you about the similar system argument; but then again, I think that the allowance of carbon panels in the area that contains the driver lends a seriously viable argument for legality of the Radon chassis panels. You're welcome to pick + choose which restricted rules classes allow for that kind of interpretive leeway, though.

you said there are conditions it won't shift under and you knew what they were. I don't particularly care what it attempted to do, only what it did.

And all of those conditions were based on native behavior of the transmission, not the shifter system. You are still equivocating.

The rules makers wanted to prevent people from hurting their engines? Unlikely.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. That's not what I said they wanted to prevent, and you know it.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Wren]

Why, exactly, can it only reasonably apply to the physical parts of the system? That's just arbitrary side-stepping.

Because the other specifically allowed systems will require some kind of intervention to operate. Air shifters will require relays, timers, and solenoids and electric solenoids will require the relays and timers. Something will intervene to translate a button press into the linear motion that activates the transmission.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. That's not what I said they wanted to prevent, and you know it.

That's all the shift reject function does, so the only reason you would want to stop it is to protect the engines less.

[Rennie Clayton]

Because the other specifically allowed systems will require some kind of intervention to operate. Air shifters will require relays, timers, and solenoids and electric solenoids will require the relays and timers. Something will intervene to translate a button press into the linear motion that activates the transmission.

That doesn't actually address my question. None of the parts mentioned interfere with the shifting process, which is precisely what the Geartronics system does when it rejects a shift request.

That's all the shift reject function does, so the only reason you would want to stop it is to protect the engines less.

No, that is not "all" the shift reject function does, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you allowed me to decide upon my own motivations, thanks. This is equivalent to saying that your only reason to oppose the Radon panels is because you just want to protect the driver less. [sarcasm] Why do you want to kill Radon drivers?!?!?! [/sarcasm]

While we have not seen eye to eye on these particular subjects, please do me - and yourself - the favor of not stooping to this level to carry your argument. It's demeaning.


Cheers,
Rennie