Interesting idea.Originally Posted by nulrich
stand-alone after-market ECUs
Interesting idea.
Last edited by Ivinsea; 10.01.10 at 7:18 AM.
1. You cannot auto shift based on TPS alone, the shift would also need to be governed by RPM. Exactly this strategy IS available in the fully enabled software, which, as we have already made 100% clear, is not available to FB racers. It's a completely hypothetical argument, it's like saying the strategy would be available if you fitted a completely different GCU. Every individual shift must be initiated by an individual request from the driver. 1 call = 1 shift. Period.
2. This isn't related to the FB rules, but the US lawyers would prevent me from enabling such a strategy!
Neil.
I didn't intend to insult. My apologies for it coming across as such.
In my opinion there have been some valid arguments supporting the use of such systems. I also believe that there have been a few red herrings tossed around which taint otherwise valid arguments supporting the systems use.
It is legal. It raises the bar. If you feel it raises the bar enough to warrant the cost, then buy one. If you don't feel it does, then don't. If you feel such devices are bad for the class then work the process to change the rules. If enough people agree, the rule will change. Perhaps that response is too blunt.
There are more than a handful of folks on this forum that have made great contributions to the club, the sport, and/or the class. A few involved longer than I've been alive. While I don't always agree with their opinions, I respect those folks, even though we've never met. I try to disagree without being insulting.
Absolutely no it is not. We need to be very careful with the words here. There is no "until" - if the shift is rejected, it's rejected and the driver must call again or there is no shift. Again, this is available in the fully enabled software, but it is not even enabled in the firmware that you guys have.
Neil.
Neil,
Let's nip this in the bud before it becomes a meme to deliberately ignore details in people's posts. Please go back and re-read my series of posts to understand the context in which I made these comments. I am speaking hypothetically with regard to what is permissible within the rules, and not commenting on the particulars of your system. I have cherry-picked features of yours to compare them to, which likely leads to some confusion on your part.
I have said this time and again to Wren - how your system currently operates has no bearing on what is permitted in the rules. My commentary is about what is permitted in the rules, not what potential nefarious machinations you are / not up to.
Cheers,
Rennie
I see your point here, that sort of lateral thinking would earn you a place in an F1 team picking through the FIA regsHowever, it's not likely to happen in FB. I'm certainly not going to write any such software unless someone was prepared to pay a sum of money that was well outside any FB budget
.
That's a moot point - there certainly are occasions when an auto shift would be quicker through certain sections of a lap, but there are also times when you don't want a shift. As I said in a previous post, no microprocessor can make better judgements than a human."It would be a slower way around the track" is neither accurate
In the UK market, I regularly enable the auto functions - but guess how many drivers use it?
It's been answered before - the system triggers on a falling edge signal. It requires a changing state. Holding the paddle does not send another request when the system re-arms.
With my cable stick shift I can change up with two fingers keeping my thumb around the wheel. I've had no issues down changing either with good old fasioned heel and toe. I don't think the weight penalty of the Geartronics Shift would be worth it for my car. How much does the complete system weigh? I've got no issues with paddle shifters, but I really don't see the need for free ECU's if the stock system works fine. Surely if a motor won't run without an aftermarket ECU then you can't really use in FB. Just a few thoughts!
Dunno how many, but that's also moot. Basically most of what I'm hearing with respect to this particular conundrum essentially amounts to "nah, people will never take it that's far" - not today, perhaps, but as you know that notion is not semantically equivalent to "the rules don't permit you to take it that far".
At any rate, leaving the decision-making capability in the driver's hands is still possible, assuming we move the shift control back to the wheel paddles - it's reasonably straightforward to detect the difference between "auto-shift" mode (the driver holding down the paddle), and a "single shift" request (the driver clipping the paddle once). Release the paddles and the car won't shift. Hit it once, and the system behaves in single shift mode. Hold it down and it takes up an automatic shifting routine that automatically shifts at optimum RPM points.
Want to stretch a gear? No problem, release the paddle and let it buzz.
Want to short shift? No problem, release the paddle to exit "auto-shift" mode, and use individual paddle hits to shift wherever you want.
All perfectly legal, in my opinion.
Cheers,
Rennie
For the price of a pizza, a 6-pack, and $5 in IC chips and wire any 1st year electrical engineer student can wire up a 555 chip to generate that pulse as often as you'd like anytime that driver activated switch is closed.I see your point here, that sort of lateral thinking would earn you a place in an F1 team picking through the FIA regs
It may have been answered before, but I didn't read it here. Just read over and over about how it required an additional input from the driver once one was rejected.
Bearing in mind that there are now more than 250 of these systems out there, I would say approximately zero drivers are using automatic upshift, and a small handful are using the stacked downshift facility. Most (I think) are using the "single queued" downshift. This is where a single rejected downshift request is executed when the RPM drops within limit. So, I think it's fair to assume that auto shift is of no overall advantage except in a drag car. That being the case, it would suggest that future technology isn't going to head in this direction.
Having said that, I completely agree that if the class does not want technology (and hence costs) to escalate, then the rules should be much more specific about what is allowed and, crucially, what is not allowed. It's clear from the current rule that paddle shifters per-se are not unwelcome, but if there was to be a ban on 'intelligent' closed-loop shifters you would by default ban them all. My reasoning is that nobody would fit an unintelligent open-loop shifter because of the poor reliability & performance issues associated with them.
It's very easy, but then you're into mandatory data-loggers along the lines of F1...it's reasonably straightforward to detect the difference between "auto-shift" mode (the driver holding down the paddle), and a "single shift" request (the driver clipping the paddle once).
Eleven pages about computer aided shifting. God help this class. The Genie ain't gettig back in the bottle.
An observation from the old guy. Long live the H pattern.
Not quite. You're over-simplifying things a bit. It's certainly easy enough to generate the pulses with a 'piggyback' cheat box, but the GCU certainly isn't going to do what you want it to do. If you did this with the upshift paddle, you would simply end up in 6th gear with a stalled motor! If you did the same thing on downshifts, you would come out of every corner on the rev limiter. So, tell me how this could improve performance?
Why do you say this?
What are your thoughts on setting the "safety" check RPM on downshifts to reject downshifts unless they deliver you into optimum acceleration revs? I.e., don't allow the system to downshift if all it will do is put you right at the top of the rev range. What's the point of downshifting to the top of the rev range?
Cheers,
Rennie
Interesting use of the words "piggyback" and "cheat"
You aren't going to end up on the rev-limiter exiting every corner if you quit asking for gears when you're in the correct one. If it asks for 100 or 10000 downshifts it doesn't matter if all the erroneous requests are rejected and you aren't still asking when you are in the right one.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. I simply indicated that it would be easy to check if a competitor was using an auto-shift system, but it would involve the use of a data-logger to prove conclusively.
The driver would get pi**ed off pretty quickly because they would not be able to rattle down the box as quickly as they wanted. I know this from experience of testing with several drivers. On previous occasions, when we've enabled the stacked downshift, we set the shift point to bring the engine back up to the point of maximum torque for the best corner exit (it calculates from gear ratios). Sometimes that's perfect, but it means that you can't make a rapid series of downshifts because invariably the first one will get blocked and you have to wait. I'm not familiar with any US circuits, but there are invariably times when you want a gear before you turn in, because once you're in a complex of corners, things can get too busy to be thinking about calling for another gear. Auto downshift sounds fine in theory, but trust me, it doesn't work so well in practice unless you are basing the shifts on track position as they were doing in F1 some years ago.What are your thoughts on setting the "safety" check RPM on downshifts to reject downshifts unless they deliver you into optimum acceleration revs? I.e., don't allow the system to downshift if all it will do is put you right at the top of the rev range. What's the point of downshifting to the top of the rev range?
We're currently looking at GPS technology to allow us to do this - only joking!!
Which is why I asked many pages ago about the "safety" check RPM being user adjustable and if it can varied by gear.
I was told it is 13000 rpms for all motors, all gears. Non user adjustable. Doesn't mean software to allow that feature would be illegal.
It's a while since I've driven a race car, but I seem to remember that's what you do with a stick
I can't believe that no one has suggested this before. That sounds like a very good idea. I think that when the time comes, a spec ecu that can be used across multiple platforms might be the solution to people spending outrageous sums of money on an ecu. It would also allow engine builders to develop fuel maps for an engine and they would have a decent audience to sell to and maybe it wouldn't leave the individual FB competitor in the dark for how to get an engine going that won't run on the stock ecu.
I don't know what the right ecu is, and it may not be the M4 since it seems to have traction control, but there would be time to find a proper solution.
No longer directed at you Nathan, more of a general comment: I have not made it a secret that I am not a fan of the aftermarket stand-alone ecu's. With that said, I know that they are going to be a part of the future of FB. I suspect that all of the engines of the future are going to end up needing a stand alone ecu to work outside of the bike. I think that one of the best things about a three year rolling moratorium starting with 2010 models is that engine things are working well now and there would be three years to figure out how to implement open ecu's or a spec ecu or what to do about stock ecu's.
Sounds like a mechanical system for rejecting shifts under certain conditions.
What conundrom? I am not stretching my neck out there when I say that no one is going to write a program for club racers, that works inside of the rules that we have in place now, that will make a better decision than the driver.
So you think that a system that allows gear changing according to pre-selected parameters is legal in a class that does not allow pre-selected gear changes?At any rate, leaving the decision-making capability in the driver's hands is still possible, assuming we move the shift control back to the wheel paddles - it's reasonably straightforward to detect the difference between "auto-shift" mode (the driver holding down the paddle), and a "single shift" request (the driver clipping the paddle once). Release the paddles and the car won't shift. Hit it once, and the system behaves in single shift mode. Hold it down and it takes up an automatic shifting routine that automatically shifts at optimum RPM points.
Want to stretch a gear? No problem, release the paddle and let it buzz.
Want to short shift? No problem, release the paddle to exit "auto-shift" mode, and use individual paddle hits to shift wherever you want.
All perfectly legal, in my opinion.
BTW- you think there is an RPM that is always optimum for an upshift on any track, gearing, or traffic condition?
It's not adjustable per gear because it was never designed to be a performance feature, purely a safety measure to prevent blow-ups.
The 13000 applies to the GSXR motors. It's a user configurable parameter. It can easily be set to 8000 if you so desired, but you would soon put it back up to the rev limit. No driver I have ever worked with makes consistent downshifts. Maybe consistent for a given corner, but not over a whole lap. The best downshift point (in RPM terms) in one corner can be very different for another corner. As I've said twice already, a good driver will almost always make a better judgement than a computer.
Eleven pages about computer aided shifting. God help this class. The Genie ain't gettig back in the bottle.
An observation from the old guy. Long live the H pattern.
I don't think it is fair to say it is just 11 pages about computer aided shifting. I would break it down this way:
4 pages of sandy ******s
3 pages of wild conjecture
2 pages of people who have actually seen/used the system
1 page of gloom and doom about how the shifter will kill the class
1 page of gloom and doom about how banning the shifter will kill the class
and the occasional shot at Schweitz because we know he will never see it
When I said it was not user adjustable, I meant that those who own the systems cannot adjust it, only the dealer or manufacturer can.
So what you're saying is we need more shots at Schwietz? I second that.
No need to check; it's perfectly legal within the scope of the rules (depending on how you do it). I take it your system does not have a "floor" RPM which will reject upshift requests that bog the motor down?
I've got no heartburn with GPS integration.The driver would get pi**ed off pretty quickly because they would not be able to rattle down the box as quickly as they wanted. I know this from experience of testing with several drivers. On previous occasions, when we've enabled the stacked downshift, we set the shift point to bring the engine back up to the point of maximum torque for the best corner exit (it calculates from gear ratios). Sometimes that's perfect, but it means that you can't make a rapid series of downshifts because invariably the first one will get blocked and you have to wait. I'm not familiar with any US circuits, but there are invariably times when you want a gear before you turn in, because once you're in a complex of corners, things can get too busy to be thinking about calling for another gear. Auto downshift sounds fine in theory, but trust me, it doesn't work so well in practice unless you are basing the shifts on track position as they were doing in F1 some years ago.
We're currently looking at GPS technology to allow us to do this - only joking!!
A quick driver will get over it, and it will downshift as rapidly as it takes the system to get into the proper rev range; also, we're talking in the context of a "continuous hold" downshift paddle. I.e., keep downshifting into the appropriate rev range so long as the paddle is held down. No need to saddle the driver with cognitive overhead in the braking zone. As (s)he is approaching the braking zone, simply depress and hold the downshift paddle well before you get there. Devote all attention to threshold braking whilst your only downshifting responsibility is to hold down the paddle until you're accelerating out of the corner. Then resume upshifts as usual. The rest is a drag race between corners... which brings me to something you said earlier:
"I think it's fair to assume that auto shift is of no overall advantage except in a drag car"
So is the driver observing the tach and declining to press a button. What's your point?
Right so - nobody will ever go there.
You mean pre-selected parameters like RPM range targets for downshifting?
Cheers,
Rennie
Currently, the parameter is not user adjustable as such, because end-users in the US only receive a 'customer' version of the software which only allows gear ratio, gear position and throttle position calibration. The 80 or so other parameters are not visible or accessible without the 'dealer' version.
Being a satisfied Geartronics customer, I know this.
Yes, we considered this when writing the rules. We discussed it more in terms of a spec OEM ECU that is distributed like the Champ Car blow-off valves. The problem with that is that not everybody has the same engine. It also doesn't work because we don't have the same cars at the same tracks, like a pro series.
The problem with a spec aftermarket ECU (Motec, Pectel, whatever) is that you've just increased my ECU cost by $2,000. So many people are making the mistake of assuming that everyone will always have the newest and bestest engines/components. At a typical race, there might be one or two guys like that. At the Runoffs, it might be half the field. Don't let the Runoffs be the tail that wags the dog.
(Dammit! I told myself I wouldn't post in this thread again.)
Mike Beauchamp
RF95 Prototype 2
Get your FIA rain lights here:
www.gyrodynamics.net/product/cartek-fia-rain-light/
Allow a single spec'd aftermarket ECU as an alternative to the stock ECU?
Cheers,
Rennie
No, probably not.
Yes, I would say there is a huge difference between a system that does nothing and a system that makes gear changes according to pre-selected parameters.You mean pre-selected parameters like RPM range targets for downshifting?
No, not necessary.
No, it would downshift at a specific programmed point - which as I keep saying is not correct under all circumstances. Been there, done that, drivers don't like it because it usually makes them slower.it will downshift as rapidly as it takes the system to get into the proper rev range
What about the times when you want to short shift? If you take the pull and hold scenario, you would need to release the paddle to get out of auto mode and then pull again to make the short shift. That would take too long because short shifts usually involve no element of planning as it's often a reaction to a situation. It would also take too much thought, and it's very doubtful that any driver would want it.The rest is a drag race between corners... which brings me to something you said earlier:
"I think it's fair to assume that auto shift is of no overall advantage except in a drag car"
That might be a good compromise. See my post in the thread started by Alex Pate.
(Crap! I did it again.)
Mike Beauchamp
RF95 Prototype 2
Get your FIA rain lights here:
www.gyrodynamics.net/product/cartek-fia-rain-light/
What I took from what Nathan was saying was pick one model from one suppplier and say that unit is ok to use, or a person can follow the rules we have now. If someone doesn't want a $2k ecu, they can pick a motor that allows use of the stock ecu like a 07-08 gsxr. If they want to use a Honda, then they can use the spec stand alone unit and pay for the tuning. The informed opinion is that no one is going to make more power than the stock ecu, but the spec stand alone ecu could help someone avoid spending a fortune figuring out how to avoid all of the integrated systems from the bike that add no value to the car.
I think that a 3 year moratorium and allowing a single spec ecu in addition to the current engine rules starting 2013 seems like a reasonable solution for class stability and making sure of a supply of engines into the future.
A spec ECU or a stock ECU is a good compromise. If you can make your engine work without it, go to it. If not, try something else.
Ken
As an aside with respect to shifter. Lawrence Loshak posted his DSR race video )DSR Champ) on Youtube. He is using a bump shifter as opposed to the normal Stohr paddles or electronic system. I read he normally uses the Flatshifter Pro, but did chose to disable the SWOL function during the race. FYI.
Ken
Direct link to Loshak's video.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Yes, that is exactly what I was suggesting. It lets the engine builders develop a harness and map for each engine type they want to build and spread the cost of development over multiple customers and units.
It lets the tinkerers try to optimize their engines without any worry about cost escalation.
Anyone that is satisfied with the stock ECU can use that.
I don't know enough about motorcycle engines to know if there's a fairly inexpensive unit out there that can handle all the possible choices, so maybe I'm being optimistic.
Nathan
adjustable as such....meaning I can't tell it a desired "rejected rpm" for each gear but I can input manipulated gear ratios to achieve the same desired result.
I really think the technology is cool. I think it is legal per the rules. I also think we should call a spade a spade.
What little I know about the system, I've learned enough about it to appreciate it for what it is. Don't intend on ever racing FB....and as long as they don't allow such systems in F5/600 I'm fine.
Please see my post over on the "FB meeting at the runoffs" in the Rules forum, about aftermarket and factory aftermarket ECU's.
Thanks
there are any video of the geatronics workin on a FB car?
shifting aids
Tried to stay out of this......but only a couple of times has anyone questioned the geartronics system with reference to the rule requiring all shifting aids be "direct acting" . If the drivers action is fed to a computer which waits for the best time to make the shift, it cannot possibly be called "direct acting".....and is therefore not legal.
If that rule isn't clear to everyone, we should clarify it (not change it - that would take a year). The intent is certainly clear as has been stated several times in this thread by those who wrote the rules. It's not like FC where the rules were written many years ago......it's still fresh in the minds of those who did all the work of writing what is a very good set of rules.
We are building a new car for the class, and have a couple of interested buyers. This shifting aid debate has stopped them dead until the issue is settled. The class started off offering great performance at somewhat of a bargin by racing standards, but this kind of cost escalation will drive out many of those interested in the class.
Most of the DSR guys are doing ok without it.....even the runoffs winner this year (read his earlier post about learning how to delay the shifts until the load is off the engine, then quickly rowing down through the gears). If they can do it, so can we.
The ecu rule needs to be clarified as well......again so the original intent is clear.....avoid driving up cost with high dollar systems (If I've read that wrong, Mike B and others of the original framers fo the class please correct me).
I don't see a problem with the bodywork rules.....a but more downforce available than an FC.....if you're creative......and know aero well enought not to get it wrong! Brandon and Tom both showed how simple that can be with the Citations. Of course they were very slick to begin with!
This is a great class.....lets keep the cost under control, so we'll have more people on the track.
Thanks,
Jerry
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote