Sorry, the rulesmakers had every opportunity to make this a cheap class. They chose to make it an expensive class instead. We had nothing to do with making the rules, we are just trying to build a car to those rules.Originally Posted by Franklin Futrelle
What is wrong with a shift system that costs as much as a gearbox rebuild for a FF?
That rule would change nothing. No one has an automatic transmission now. the current rule prevents automatic transmissions and pre selecting a shift.
does the system you're talking about allow driver to execute downshift only within a certain rpm range or any rpm?
Last edited by mario_zgb; 09.23.10 at 2:38 PM.
Lots of fascinating information here:
http://www.geartronics.co.uk/products.htm
Dick
hehe... Wren you took my proposal too seriously
Here we go again with rules intent. Ask the other guys on the F1000 rules committee if we intended for systems like these. Not by my recollection.These systems are well within the spirit and letter of the rule. This is exactly what was intended by the rule.
The same intent issue is going on with the FC and Radon. Somehow or other, many contend that the Radon does not meet the intent of the FC rules, especially those that were at the 1986 meeting - and yet this geartronix system is definitely outside what I thought our intent was when we wrote the F1000 rules. The last thing we wanted was open wheel DSR.
Ask Mike B about our intent.
thx Dick
but again... would any of these geartronic shifter features be considered pre-selected gear change?
rule is pretty short though
- Faster, more precise gear shifts without use of the clutch, upshifts typically
50-60mS, depending upon gearbox type & engine inertia etc.- Significantly reduced gearbox dog wear.
- Virtually constant power delivery to the driven wheels leading to reduced risk of vehicle instability during shifts. See this data log example.
- Both hands can be kept on the steering wheel at all times.
- Allows you to concentrate on other aspects of car control, leading to reduced lap/stage times.
- Allows you to shift up and down when you want, not when the conditions dictate.
- Eliminates downshift induced over-revs, and includes sophisticated engine & gearbox protection strategies.
- On turbocharged cars, boost is not lost during gear shifts, leading to significantly increased performance.
- Capable of 5 down-shifts in less than 1 second, depending upon gearbox type & engine response.
- Option of fully automatic up-shift and queued down-shift pre-select modes.
This is pathetic! want a totally spec class go race FE. Its no wonder new membership is down.
I have had two kids wanting to race FB for 18 months now but we are holding off just for these reasons.
You all could of foreseen this when writing the rules. If you didn't want motor competitin then you should of made it a single motor class, you could of specked a paddle shift system etc.etc.etc.
Gotta ask this; with the allowance for assisted gear changes, just what did you think you were getting and what were the limits you intended?
Unfortuantely, the FB rules have many of the same sort of bad wording issues as FF/FC - even without 25 years of bad "clarifications" added on top of the original mistakes.
looks like Coop's new system works good... and he must have nailed the setup for wet track too
congrats Coop
It is hard for me to believe that when you wrote a rule saying that you wanted to allow airshifters, that you did not intend to allow air shifters.
Sometimes just for fun, I look back through the early FB rules threads. People who knew what they were talking about predicted that this class would become exactly what it has become: ultra-fast tube frame cars with crazy aerodynamic rules. The fastest cars are the citations and they look exactly like what was predicted long ago. Huge downforce, very low frontal areas, FC style suspensions with great geometry. All of the raised nose garbage is just marketing.
The only thing that this system does is reject a shift if it will over-rev the engine. It is a safety thing to keep people from shoving a rod through the front of the block. If the system rejects a shift, it does not save the shift and execute it later. The driver has to ask for another shift.
Wouldn't that just be Coop's luck if the shifter system he just thrashed to put on (and seems to be working, I hope, based on his Q3 performance), were deemed illegal?
I don't like to see expensive gizmos in club racing, but I agree with Wren and others. These seem perfectly legal, and may even help transmission reliability.
I think you can still race a pretty cool car in FB without spending much money. You'd just need to lower expectations regarding competitiveness. But, what other class offers so much performance even at the lowest end of the spectrum? Damn cool formula.
Is it time to introduce CFB? :-).
That's not what you and Brandon told me in June.
The European version can. The software has not been released to north america and will not be. The dealer (Belling) told us that even he can't do it and he is the only person in North America with the dealer software.
Everyone needs to relax and understand that this is just a more sophisticated version of the flatshifter expert.
Microprocessor controlled
What we have here is a mechanical air shifter that functions thru a MICROPROCESSOR and is software driven. The driver is the I.O. port that trips the function of the system via switches on the paddle.
This system operates using what is refered to as a CLOSED LOOP....it always knows where it is at all times.
Maybe the intent of the rule was to allow air shifters but what failed to be put in language of the rule clearly stating they can't be tied into a MICROPROCESSOR. Seems very simple to me.
GH
FB #76
I'll take the blame for that, my crystal ball was in the shop when we wrote the rules.
I wonder if it's too late to correct that little oversight...
Gary, I don't think we plan on re-writing any rules (this isn't FC...at least I hope not!). I doubt if you'll miss anything.
We'd better make it clear soon
MikeI'll take the blame for that, my crystal ball was in the shop when we wrote the rules.
I wonder if it's too late to correct that little oversight...
My crystal ball is cloudy all the time.....when we designed and built our car we spotted that omission in the rule and wondered when it would become a problem.
It's a problem now in my opinion....better clear this up soon.
I'm going to hold back on how I feel about all this as I haven't gone out and dropped big coin on this system for that very reason.
GH
FB #76
Maybe you don't, but I feel this is an omission that should be tightened up sooner than later. Yes, there are a handful of people that will be very mad but there's a much larger group that would be thankful for the cost saving. It might help the class continue to grow.
The people that bought the system can sell it to a DSR owner.
[FONT=Verdana]i think that shifters with closed loop are brilliant idea, but don't go by what i say... judge based on Coop's actions[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]the problem is in rule wording... different people entering the class with different anticipation... some are willing and able to adopt different interpretation of the same (like Coop) and some are not... some people enter the class for fun factor, some want to be competitive... we all know by now that closed loop shifters give you an advantage (the ones who claim differently make me smile) but we're still not sure are they legal by the rule book... of course shifter manufacturers will say they are, guys that are trying to race on low budget will be against another expense... who is to say?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]if you go back here [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]http://www.geartronics.co.uk/products.htm[/FONT][FONT=Verdana] it says that one of the geartronic shifter benefits is [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Option of fully automatic up-shift and queued down-shift pre-select modes
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]and if you go by rule book it says Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Does pre-select have different meaning in these two sentences?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Did i misunderstand you Wren or you're trying to say that european version wouldn't be legal for F1000?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Is it possible to determine at impound what the software really does? (euro or NA version)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]
[/FONT]
there's a solution
Mike
Yikes...this is a very slippery slope we are on here.
There's a way to handle this without those that have spent the $$$$$ to still use them. Simply require them to remove the software controlled functionality and closed loop. The sytem still functions but the driver must determine the amount he blips the throttle and when to do it at the correct RPM. The WEST SYSTEM does this same thing very well and has no microprocessor software driven closed loop.
I'm just making a suggestion here....those that have some financial stake I feel for you.
GH
FB #76
Electronic Shifters
I don't think this system would be allowed in DSR.Their rule bans electronic assisted shifts.There has been a lot of discussion on the DSR forum in the past and as I recall the feeling was that electric relays were ok but microprossors not ok.They looked at it as the system has to shift when the button or paddle was actuated by the driver.No microprossor not allowing the shift to take place because the rpm is wrong.
Correct. The one that Firman west sells all of us does not do the pre selected gear changes. Schweitz offered to put a CRB member in his car to prove it.
Again, these are not an unfair advantage.
Moving the goal posts is a dirty thing to do. It won't slow the fast guys down, they will just spend the money on something else.
This expense is entirely in line with what FC and FA spend on gearboxes. Why the indignity?
Once it "rejects" a shift how long before it is ready to accept another input?
While under braking, can I just grab a whole bunch of gears and let it reject all that would result in an overrev and accept those that wouldn't?
In a sense, the computer would be determining when to shift as long as I was still asking it to.
The Geartronic is similar to this system
http://www.proshift.com/Products/Pro-Shift_PS3_System/
which is currently being used in DSR.
I keep hearing "we're turning this into a NEW open wheel DSR class", just by using a shifter system? I think people are missing something here. I don't read anywhere in the FB rules that you can use a modified engine or carbon fiber, the engine must be stock, nor have I heard anyone express interest in adding a modified engine to the FB rules. My understanding is that a BIG part of a DSR cost is the engine.
Am I missing something?
I am in favor of software-driven semi-automatic shifters, but calling it a safety thing is a red herring. Don't rush your downshifts, and you won't overrev.
this is crazy, most of the people in this class and this race have spent money on systems that were legal as per the rules and now a few people who don't want to spend the money want to call it illegal or not fair?? didn't Niki win again these same guys without any type of shifting system? so what's the difference. I think that if rules get changed the people that bought the systems should be reimbursed the money and time spent (which will never happen). Or maybe there should be a splinter class that evolve's out of FB for people that like to continue as the rules were written. This just all seems unfair.
Seriously? Brandon just spends money for the hell of it? I'm not that stupid.
In 8+ years of racing FC I've spent exactly $0 on gearbox rebuilds. I can count on one hand the # of times I missed a shift, and it wasn't the gearbox's fault.
If I wanted to spend FA money, I'd buy an FA.
It's also the same cost as 2 new sets of wheels, and equally irrelevant.
I'm not indignant. I'm embarrassed that I didn't foresee this and allowed it in the rules that I helped create. It is entirely counter to the philosophy of the class and if it can be corrected, it should be done now.
disclaimer: I'm arguing with you knowing full well that I'll see you tomorrow. And you're bigger than me...
So you think that more blown motors are a good thing?
These cars often catch fire when the motor goes. We need to be encouraging more safety, not less.
The CRB investigation this morning is complete. The systems are completely legal to the GCR. This is just runoffs bull**** where the slow guys piss and moan and don't believe they can really be that slow. Remember that Brandon was in the 9's when we started developing and testing here in may. It is pretty damn naïve to think that the second he found is in the shifter.
Mike, what kind of omission is it? You guys allowed air shifters and we used them. They still don't cost more than a good LD200 rebuild.
Screwing guys after the fact is dirty. It won't do any favors for participation numbers.
My comment from before was entirely related (and a bit facetious) to the use of the word "intent". Given what is written in the rules, I see these systems as currently legal.
Rule-writing is quite the pain in the arse.
Oh yes - I forgot. Good luck to all the competitors! Sometimes we get so hung up between the the railroad tracks and miss the big picture.
Agreed. As long as everybody has the ability to use one should they decide it is worth the cost, then no unfairness about it.
Most certainly is. Reminds me of another situation in another class
Sure it will. They didn't spend that kind of coin on something that wasn't going to help them. That may be a small percentage contribution, but in any event they would be slower without it. Even if it was only .05 seconds a lap. That's 3/4 of a second over a 15 lap race. Quite possibly the difference between 1st and 4th.
No indignity here. Number 1, it isn't a gearbox. Number 2, it would seem to be a real game changer, and an expensive one at that. If it wasn't a competitve advantage OR it was inexpensive I don't think many would be complaining.
quote from Brandon in the June sprints thread:
The upshifts are good, but the downshifts make all the difference to me. This takes some of the most frantic moments on the track (braking for T5 downshifting 4 gears) and now I feel like I have time to react and concentrate on driving not just shifting.
I agree with what he say's and I don't drive half as fast as these guys. This is also a safer way to drive and should be encouraged.
I think $5-7k is crazy expensive but there are other much less expensive systems that'll do the same.
BTW: If this system in question does pre-determine shifting that is not cool, although I doubt that is the fact. My flatshifter system definately doesn't.
Not sure. We haven't found anybody stupid enough to try it. You never use first gear in these cars and brandon seriously blew a lap yesterday when he accidentally requested another shift and it gave him the shift he requested. He ended up running a 10. What you are suggesting would be a seriously slow way around the track.
I think that was a rhetorical question to help determine the amount of intervention the processor does.....
We allowed air shifters based on what we (I) knew about air shifters at the time. Again, I'm embarrassed that I didn't catch it or do enough research to see what was possible. Now I know and want to correct my transgression.
Not sure why you keep comparing a computer controlled shifter to an FC gearbox...
I agree, but it would better to screw a handful of guys now than an entire class in the near future. (Ooh, that sounds bad...)
Neither will an excessively high cost of entry to the class.
Bear in mind that I haven't proposed a rule change. At this point, I'm playing devil's advocate and gauging people's attitude toward this system and its cost.
It helps, but it is not a .5 second a lap advantage. Does anyone really think that the only reason the Citations are the fast cars is because of the shifter? The is utter bull**** in addition to being pretty damn insulting.
Apples to apples, that is what the fast guys spend.In 8+ years of racing FC I've spent exactly $0 on gearbox rebuilds. I can count on one hand the # of times I missed a shift, and it wasn't the gearbox's fault.
If I wanted to spend FA money, I'd buy an FA.
I don't know what the philosophy of the class is and I don't understand why we can't have FC with bike motors, but you guys decided to give us aluminum calipers and bodywork that is wider than an atlantic. We are just building to the rules you gave us.I'm not indignant. I'm embarrassed that I didn't foresee this and allowed it in the rules that I helped create. It is entirely counter to the philosophy of the class and if it can be corrected, it should be done now.
disclaimer: I'm arguing with you knowing full well that I'll see you tomorrow. And you're bigger than me...
Agreed!
Proposition 65 warning:
WARNING:The preceding post (and everything else in existence) is known to the State of California to cause cancer or other reproductive harm.
[QUOTE=Mike B;269541
Bear in mind that I haven't proposed a rule change. At this point, I'm playing devil's advocate and gauging people's attitude toward this system and its cost.[/QUOTE]
Why the fixation on the shifters? we have champ car shocks on the grid and wind tunnels and shaker rigs are going to be a part in the near future.
I don't think anyone has said anything like that, and you know where I stand regarding the Citation vs. other cars (except the Piper).
And aluminum calipers and wide bodywork is related to a shifter how? About as much as an FC gearbox? I don't have any problem at all with the bodywork or brakes rules (other than differential bores, another embarrassment.)
I'll be the first to tell you that the F1000 rules are far from perfect. The other members of the rule committee will be the 2nd, 3rd, 4th...
However, the SCCA has a process for improving the rules, whether it's for safety improvement, cost reduction, whatever. We're not permanently locked into a ruleset for any given class. If there's an opportunity to improve the rules for a class and the members agree (democracy), everyone wins.
Okay, almost everyone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote