Gotta start somewhere!Originally Posted by Wren
If you have ideas to outlaw champ car shocks and wind tunnels, I'm all ears!
Gotta start somewhere!
If you have ideas to outlaw champ car shocks and wind tunnels, I'm all ears!
Can anyone really say that this shifter system will make any difference of who wins the race?? I doubt it, Niki won the june sprints without it. Coop only went to it because he was having issues with his system. this is starting to sound like a little bit of muscle flexing.
If everybody is too stupid to try and it would be seriously slow, then obviously I misunderstood the capabilities of the system. Thus my questions.
I'm talking about errant downshifts, not requesting a upshift when I didn't need one.
If it can't store requests, but can ignore errant requests, then I can ask for a whole bunch when I know I need some and it will give me as many as I need when I need them as long as I am still in the process of asking. Perfectly timed downshifts, with no extra downshifts, without the brain in the bucket having to think about how many or when is seriously slow ?? Okay.
You are right, just trying to determine the amount of intervention. If the math channels, capabilities are there to ignore inputs for downshifts that would cause an overrev, couldn't the same logic be utilized to prevent upshifts that are too soon (cause RPMS to drop below a desired point?).
Sequential boxes are cool, but not when a computer is doing most of the thinking.
Funny how I knew this topic was going to come up at the Runoffs!
BTW, my Citation has Champ Car shocks!
It won't make a difference. Like I keep saying, the fast guys are going to keep being fast. We don't know what it will take to beat Niki, we haven't done it yet.
This shifter is getting way too much attention.
Yep. the excuses are really starting to fly. People seem to struggle understanding that a car/driver combination just might be better.
Its all bull****.
While we are zip zaping around the topics. Anydody check that Honda engine for a Motec controller? Its cheaper than a shifter if its there.
On a separate note, I think the rules makers did a pretty good job. There is a lot of creativity in this class, especially considering the amount of manufacturers that have stepped up to test the boundaries. Things will ultimately evolve as needed, but there is definitely nothing to be embarrassed about.
Ken
Sal told me that the stock ecu only serves as a switchable ground for the stand alone engine controller in the car. I haven't inspected it or cared. We would rather have the car here.While we are zip zaping around the topics. Anydody check that Honda engine for a Motec controller? Its cheaper than a shifter if its there.
On a separate note, I think the rules makers did a pretty good job. There is a lot of creativity in this class, especially considering the amount of manufacturers that have stepped up to test the boundaries. Things will ultimately evolve as needed, but there is definitely nothing to be embarrassed about.
Agree - the biggest variable is always the nut behind the wheel. Certainly not a shifter system. It is what it is and is legal. Doubtful the rule will change. It's a done deal Mike.
Some F1000 rules history:
1) We were drafting up the rules for a Regional Class only. SCCA unexpectedly made it National after the rules were done. If we knew it was headed directly for National status, then we probably would have changed some things. For instance, the body width rule was set to allow the Speads. Our mode at the time was to allow as many cars as possible to build up the numbers to make National status.
2) I was the one on the committee more on the edge of allowing more things than others. For instance, I argued FOR monocoque chassis and against the intake restrictor.
3) The differential bore brake thing in the pistons was added at the insistence of Dave Gomberg, our SCCA liaison, and was not from the committee.
4) We were somewhat split on insistence on manual shifting.
etc...
Anyway, all rulesets must be a compromise. I think we got it pretty close for a bunch of amateurs. The rules have remained pretty consistent over the 5 years, and I think that consistency has contributed to our class' growth. At this point, I'd say leave well enough alone. Technology is going to change, and I'd like to see FB follow this change. One of our formula classes must embrace change, it may as well be us. Hell, we change engines at least every two years anyway! Five years ago, while we were making the rules, we could not have foreseen the gearshifter systems available today. We also cannot foresee what will come down the pike five more years from now. This is fun stuff. We either embrace change within the ruleset or stagnate.
Ahh, where to start?
OK guys, this might sound crazy, but all I'm after is a car that will downshift!
I've been struggling with this for quite some time, even on my last FB, the Novak Van Diemen conversion. Why?
As far as I can tell, and after speaking with all my FBro's, it's all in the insane braking ability of these cars: we have 4 piston aluminum calipers and huge ventilated rotors that would look at home on a sportscar weighing 3 x's as much as our 1000 lbs, allowing massive deceleration.
Our braking zones are so incredibly short that the bike transmissions just can't get it done.
Ya know, hat's off to anyone that can do it, but it has been my experience that in multiple downchange situations (T's 5 and 12 here at Rd Am for instance) all I get is 1, and then the lever won't hardly move, followed by enough slowing down that the transmission will then allow the remaining downshifts to occur, only this time you need one more due to how slow you are now going.
Totally unacceptable. Something had to change, or I was relegated to slugging around the track, looking like some kind of clown - soooooooo not cool...
I ran into Nicholas the other night, just as we were leaving for dinner. Talk about being in the right place at the right time (both of us actually).
After months of conversation with him, and months of me saying no, it all came down to the Runoffs, and my subpar performance in the Q's.
Before he could get two words out, I just cut him straight off and said "If you can somehow get this done in time, I'm on board, let's do this".
I don't know how much time I will pickup, but I know how much time was being wasted, overslowing the car so that I might continue downchanging.
I'm currently 5th on the grid for Saturday's race, over 2 seconds off pole.
If what I felt today in Q3 is any indication, as long as the weather is not an issue, most of that gap will be swallowed up: The Geartronix sytem worked flawlessly.
For me it's in the ability of the car to actually downchange.
The fact that I ended up topping today's combined FA/FB Q3 had more to do with me staying out and getting some laps to allow enough data to be generated to allow some much needed adjustments. The track was very wet on the back portion, so no one was going to come remotely close to improving their Q1 and Q2 times.
Mario, the setup today was nothing extraordinary - prettty much a dry setup with a tad more wing.
Much thanks to Nicholas and crew guy Alex of Firman Cars West for an outstanding job, very tidy and very professional.
Last edited by glenn cooper; 09.23.10 at 9:48 PM. Reason: spllin errrz
[quote=VehDyn;269558]While we are zip zaping around the topics. Anydody check that Honda engine for a Motec controller? Its cheaper than a shifter if its there.
Ha, I was waiting for that one to come up. Has anybody checked how they're getting the BMW to run.
I'll bet that all of the newer motors are going to need to be set up that way. The manufacturers are adding more and more complex electronics to their bikes.
Why don't we outlaw cars with well-thought-out suspension geometry, stiff-but-light chassis, low frontal area, and efficient sidepods? Because those things have WAY more effect on the grid order than the Geartronics.
I'm developing a new system for my car that converts the 6 speed sequential shift into a 4 speed H pattern shift. It's pretty trick and has an auto blip feature (my heel) and allows you to go from 4th to 1st in one easy shift. I'll let you know hopw it works out!
John Paul,
I'm with you 100%.
At the manufacturers meeting this weekend I'm going to make the suggestion that we form a "splinter group" and get those that want to continue to see this class grow and not get turn into FC form another race group, separate from FB.
<guess I should insert one of those smiley faces here>
Okay, I wrote this to show how extremist some of these posts are getting. Some of them are starting to look pretty unreal.
A whole a lot of blabber about very little. The shifter doesn't costs anymore than the latest engine. Keep that in perspective. Some people here seem to be on the verge of losing their minds over this.
A few deep breaths and a valium will go far for you.
Seriously guys, I can help you in finding a doctor if you need one. We're all here to help one another right?
P.S: Great photos Dennis. Thanks for posting them.
PPS: Good post Rob. .
Last edited by Thomas Copeland; 09.23.10 at 11:14 PM.
There is absolutely no way that is it. The grid order is only an effect of who has the shifter and who doesn't. It is entirely unpossible that the Citations are just better cars. Unpossible.
I want to know what is going to be done about equalizing weights. Tom schweitz weighs 100 pounds more than Niki and Tom is very near minimum weight and Niki is 60-80 pounds heavy. This is clearly a result of Tom driving a better engineered car and we are obviously trying to keep quality engineering out of FB.
That was our conversation at dinner. The Citation cars can easily be converted to zetec. I believe that Schweitz already has everything he needs to convert and we have an LD200 and can call Sandy for an engine tomorrow. We would be happy to leave you guys to your ridiculous, tire destroying raised noses and swoopy bodywork that amounts to nothing more than pushing an aero brick around in a regional only class.I'm developing a new system for my car that converts the 6 speed sequential shift into a 4 speed H pattern shift. It's pretty trick and has an auto blip feature (my heel) and allows you to go from 4th to 1st in one easy shift. I'll let you know hopw it works out!
You forgot the smilies, too, Wren.
You are right. That was over the top, but disenfranchising people with options is rarely a good idea.
Wren likes to gloat
Wow Wren you really do like the gloating, it fits you well.
I guess I'll take my tire eating, raised nose, aero brick and moth ball it. By your account everyone else is just a slug moving chicane.
I'll be rooting for the first Aero Brick to cross the finish line Saturday.
GH
FB #76
Wren,
You should wander down to Siebkins more often.
Don't go in if Caldwell Racing is already there.
[obviously I'm joking but I think it's ridiculous to change the rules because you don't want to spend the money someone else will. What do you do, ban any new legal part that may give an advantage because you don't want to buy one??quote=Thomas Copeland;269577]John Paul,
I'm with you 100%.
At the manufacturers meeting this weekend I'm going to make the suggestion that we form a "splinter group" and get those that want to continue to see this class grow and not get turn into FC form another race group, separate from FB.
Of course. So was I. We need more lightness in this thread. Can we steal some material from that joke thread? Whatever happen to it?
Sorry, you are completely missing the point. I am not interested in gloating before the race. Qualifying doesn't mean ****. We haven't beaten Niki in three tries this year. I wouldn't bet that either car can beat him this time either. IMO he is pretty easily the best driver on the grid.
Since the sprints we have had to put up with people taking shots at our car and accusing us of cheating (although I understand it started well before that even). Then this morning we find out that people are complaing to the CRB and the stewards that we are cheating. Now we get the cheating accusations plus a movement to outlaw better engineering in the cars and something that is easier on the engines. I am pretty tired of it.
Edit- as for the raised noses, I have posted on here for years my belief that the fast cars are going to be the Novak Van Diemen conversion, the Piper, and the Citation. Even Baldwin woukd not allow the raised noses to be called a design comprimise or a aero thing. He would only call them a trend.
Last edited by Wren; 09.24.10 at 12:59 AM.
Yes, this thread needs some more lightness in it. I don't really understand why classes are starting to eat their own around the runoffs. The DSR guys are doing it to.
You guys built a better mousetrap, completely within the rules, and should be proud of it.
Hello Wren again,
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]Citation guys did excellent job making the car fast... just by looking at the car you can say it's fast... personally i like the approach taken towards development of the car... Tom and Brandon are fast drivers and they proved that before... so Citation cars being at the front is expected and deserved... nobody is trying to take that away from you... but we have to admit that geartronic shifter is positive addition to Citation already excellent performance... that's why you guys decided to use it in your car... on some tracks it makes more, on some less difference... some other guys didn't interpret that rule the way you did because of the way it's written (i know you would agree with me on that one hehe)... so all this talk is not about taking something away from Citation or, even worse, trying to say that somebody cheated... it's about getting everybody on same page about the same rule... if rule makers decided in favour of closed loop shifter so let it be... i just hope that prices for it don't go up[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]again Citation guys put lots of effort, time, thinking and testing into their cars so result is expected... but difference in lap times should not be affected by different rule interpretation... you're doing everything else right so even if everybody had closed loop shifters i believe you would still be pretty much at the front[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]also... testing days... another way to be faster... allowed? yes... so if you can, go for it[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Regards and wish you good luck[/FONT][/FONT]
Last edited by mario_zgb; 09.24.10 at 1:08 AM.
Coop
so it wasn't the setup?... it was you again hehe... if i was there i would shake your hand like i did at WG
I understand that the cheating accusations haven't been on here, but they have certainly been in the paddock here and in other places. Most of the other competitors here are stand up guys that I get on well with and they have told us about what some people are saying. Then we had to answer to the CRB this morning because we were being accused of cheating. It is just getting old. We have been accused of cheating on more than just the shifters
I really don't think we have a rules interpretation difference. It is annoying that some people want to see things changed though. The CRB seems to have already decided that the systems are legal.
The Bickering
needs to stop on all sides.
F1000 is about to crown an innagural SCCA Runoffs champion. Let's celebrate our accomplishments as a class. A few years ago there were virtually no cars. This year we achieved our 2.5 entries and solidified our National status.
Public name calling, arguing and insulting each other isn't very flattering toward our class in my opinion. How about we all try to think positive...
To that end, congratulations to Tom for putting the car on the pole with the fastest ever FB lap around Road America, well done.
I'm looking forward to the race on Saturday. I hope it's a clean race that shocases 12 fast FB cars that are a hoot to drive.
Brandon
HERE, HERE Agreed !!
Great pictures Dennis, made me wish I could have stay the rest of the week. It looks like it's going to be a heck of a race.
Good Luck to everyone, and have a good clean race.
Wren, we are paddocked by the main tunnel, first trailer on the left after you come through.
Personally, I love the whiz bang stuff. I am just an old engineer. I am not going to win the Runoffs or have time to go there. I just like blasting around and having fun.
Back to car stuff. Looks like from post 169, JR has gone back to the original air intake. I guess the BMW sits lower or requires a different intake. It is very cool to see all the different cars and interpretations in the class.
Gotta go. Have a meeting to hopefully generate some revenue. Good luck guys.
Ken
There is usually some whizzy bit at the runoffs every year that causes a ruckus. Everyone goes crazy wanting to burn whoever has it at the stake, screaming that if we don't outlaw it now, everyone will have to buy it to be competitive, and soon we will all have $150,000 cars. Remember the "aero wheel" in FF a couple years back? Has it become necessary to buy those to win in FF? It seems like at every runoffs, a contingent pops up insisting that there just HAS to be some unfair advantage on the car(s) that are going quick that is either illegal or should be made illegal immediately. Next year it will be something else.
hmm, the same 3 cars we are complaining about also happen to be the only guys on the grid running BRD dry sumps. i seem to remember similar threads a year or so ago about how they were too expensive and all sorts of other crazy stuff. in our f1000 test bed we found 3-4mph gained with dry sump alone same as found with the west cars last year where they ended up with the highest trap speeds at the runoffs, now those are measurable gains, but i stopped posting here after all the garbage on those threads, and everyone forgot about it and no more complaints! brandon spent a lot of time and money with me getting the dry sumps up and running, but it wasnt posted here, so no moaning on that one. there will always be guys who look for every advantage possible. jro probably spent similar money on that bmw, and had it worked out, you would all be complaining about that. the total package is key, dont bring a knife to a gun fight! just look at the citation next to the other cars and tell me you cant see how it would be faster, especially on this hi speed circuit! beyond that, i bet the price of a new turn key citation with dry sump and this wiz bang shifter is probably still less then a new stohr or rfr?? you guys say you dont want to turn into open wheel dsr, so quit complaining about rules, because that is all i see wrong with dsr! now those guys all showed up with the gear needed to win, and we have a tight pack up front and they are having fun. this is what makes the runoffs so cool! for those that dont want to spend the money there is always FS. good luck to everyone there!
You've got it the wrong way 'round. The braking comes from the aero [grip]. More grip = the need for bigger brakes.
Interesting that a dog box transmission cares one way or the other. I have no problem going 6 down to 1 in a pro mazda, 2.5-3G braking (at the start of the brake zone, when you have all the aero). Do you guys have much more braking G's than that? In fact I can shift faster than the car can catch up; I have to wait for the car to slow a bit to avoid overrev. With the bike engine I imagine that's not the case though.Our braking zones are so incredibly short that the bike transmissions just can't get it done.
If that is actually the issue, I don't see how automating the shift action would change anything. The automated shift would suffer the same problem.Ya know, hat's off to anyone that can do it, but it has been my experience that in multiple downchange situations (T's 5 and 12 here at Rd Am for instance) all I get is 1, and then the lever won't hardly move, followed by enough slowing down that the transmission will then allow the remaining downshifts to occur, only this time you need one more due to how slow you are now going.
Hello Guys,
Let me introduce myself...
My name is Neil, and I'm the owner of the company whos product seems to have taken up a sizeable proportion of this thread - Geartronics.
I hope you don't mind me intruding, but I've been reading with great interest all the comments (from all sides) regarding the legality of my paddle shift system and the alleged performance benefits that it offers. I want to clarify a few points that have been made so far...
As has been noted, the system does have the capability to perform pre-selected (and indeed fully automatic) shifts - BUT, only if those parts of the software have been unlocked by a software licence key. The system as supplied to Firman West Cars does not have these features enabled and therefore cannot possibly perform these functions. The licence key is highly encrypted, and is not possible to 'crack'. No other systems have been supplied to the US market and FWC have exclusive rights to the system. Therefore it's extremely unlikely for anyone in the US to get their hands on an unlocked ECU. Besides, even if they did, a quick glance at the configuration software by the scrutineers would tell if the auto function was enabled or not. I obviously have a vested interest, but to me, the rule regarding pre-selected shifts is completely unambiguous and the system is therefore perfectly legal under the terms of the current ruling.
Next, I'd like to clarify the position regarding any performance advantage of using the system. Contrary to what some people may think (or have been told by others), the shift system will provide an insignificant performance advantage in itself. The speed of the upshifts is perhaps slightly faster than a stick shift, but only by a few miliseconds. It's important to note that this does NOT translate into the equivalent saving in lap time. This is a myth, generally bandied about by our rivals. Any performance advantage comes about due to the slight extra time that the car is accelerating rather than coasting. However, if anyone can actually measure how much faster a 180hp car will be going after an extra 10 or 20mS worth of acceleration , then I take my hat off to them! To suggest that ANY paddleshift system gives a measureable straight-line advantage on a low-powered normally-aspirated car is just bull**** peddled by other suppliers.
What a paddleshift system does is allow the driver to drive the car faster if he or she has the necessary skill and commitment. Ironically, it's the drivers lower down the grid (who I guess are the ones that are complaining most) that are likely to see the greatest benefit from fitting such a system. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the biggest performance factor in any car is generally the driver. Slower drivers are going to reap more benefit from a 'driver aid' than the more talented drivers.
The single most important aspect of the shift system are the safety factors. Firstly, the system will prevent over-revs due to inappropriate downshift calls. In the configuration that you guys have, if the GCU calculates that a downshift would buzz the engine beyond the rev limit, then the shift request will be declined. The driver then has to call again. This is completely manual, and at no time will the system take over and make automated or pre-selected shifts. This has to be good for engines, and might prevent expensive blow-ups. Secondly, the sophistication of the closed-loop strategy massively reduces gearbox dog wear. Again, this is especially true of the less talented drivers who are likely to be making more missed shifts on a stick. Thirdly, there's also the safety aspect of not having to take you hands off the wheel!
I don't know how much a motor costs to replace when it goes bang, or how much a transmission rebuild costs, or indeed how much a chassis costs to replace when it ends up in the wall, but I guess it's a fair bit more than the shift system.
If the rule makers had intended to allow only cheap unintelligent paddle shifters into the class, then costs would surely have risen due to the amount of gearbox damage that these things cause. You don't have to look very far on the web to find horror stories about solenoid shifters and the trail of destruction that most of them leave behind. The fact remains that a sophisticated air shift system should be regarded as an investment and not a cost.
Thanks for your time. I'm off to bed now - it's nearly 2.00am in the UK
Neil.
Have all SCCA scrutineers been provided with the software to verify legality?
Glad to see you made it to the forum to explain things to people Neil.
I have had several discussions with Neil about his system, he was very open about the system explaining the details of it to me.
His system is very well developed and tested in England and Europe.
As far as I know, they don't give that software to anybody. Geartronics users only get a lite version that allows recalibrating your gear position sensor and throttle position sensor when you change engines. I understand the desire for the tech scrutineers to have the "full" software to verify that the automatic modes are disabled and locked out, but I doubt they will release it. In the wrong hands, I'm told it would allow users to make potentially engine-destroying changes to the shift system. Perhaps they can make a "scrutineer version" that doesn't allow changes but will show that the auto stuff is disabled? Similar to checksums for an ECU, maybe. And as offered before, an independent (but skilled enough not to wad it up) driver may jump in Schwietz's car for a lap to verify that it bounces off the rev limiter if you don't hit the paddle to upshift, and that it will not queue downshifts.
More importantly, congrats to Brandon and crew for throroughly beating everyone at the runoffs. He had an ever widening gap until the yellow narrowed it. I know how hard he and his guys worked on that car this year. The man-hours, not the shifter or anything else, are the most valuable thing on his car. The endless hours and late nights, combined with impeccable driving, are the reason he won.
LOL.
I have no dog in this fight, so not sure I want to get even more involved, but I can't resist. I work in computer security and we break unbreakable systems all the time, as a matter of course. It's extremely, extremely difficult to build an uncrackable system, and I can almost absolutely guarantee you that for the cost at which you must have to produce the system, there is no way it can be "uncrackable".
However, in practical terms, there probably aren't enough of the systems distributed to enough of the right people with enough of a motive to crack it. Plus it'd be easier just to piggyback it anyway.
The only way to "guarantee" the systems aren't tampered with is to do a champ-car-like system where they (champ car) distributed waste gates to the teams via lottery at the start of the race and collected them at the end of the race. Obviously this wouldn't work for amateur racing.
I don't think this matters though, as I doubt that the real issue is the capability of the system and ability to cheat (after all, cheaters will always find a way), as much as whether the system is legal at all (with the non-auto limitation). Seems that it is legal, per the tech ruling.
No, but it's a simple task to provide the eligibility scrutineers with a special version to allow them to verify the configuration of the auto system.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
