Nobody was protested because of the shifters. There was discussion of it, but no protests were filed.
Nobody was protested because of the shifters. There was discussion of it, but no protests were filed.
The $7,000 figure that keeps getting thrown around is if you pay them to build a harness, install it for you, etc. There is roughly $5k in parts depending on exchange rate, plus at the track initial setup. We did the install and wiring/plumbing ourselves, and paid for Mr. Belling to come to the Sprints to set the software up.
Where are you getting engines for $1k? I'd like to have that source.
I have never defended it as a cost savings. I am a gadget freak, and I like whizzy bits. There are plenty of other expensive pieces on some of these cars that no one is complaining about. No one is complaining about shocks that cost twice what the shifter cost. Or brake systems that cost as much or more than the shifter.
I can't tell you why others are complaining, but I not complaining about the system per se, rather the rules and the inability to enforce. And I'm not complaining about the shocks or brakes b/c I don't see any rules enforcement issue there.Originally Posted by starkejt
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.
That's a valid point, but we would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by favouring a particular individual or team. If it was discovered that a systems manufacturer was colluding with a cheat then the systems would certainly get banned.
As I stated in my reply to Wren, my statement regarding cheating was not directed toward you or anyone running today. But I still want to know how with the current rules we could ever discover if someone was cheating.
Sounds fine by me
That won't be happening in the near future, because the other players at this level of the sport are literally years behind. One outfit that likes to think they are the market leader () don't even know enough to understand how far behind they are. Besides, it's been pointed out that the auto function would not necessarily be an advantage, and in some situations it would actually be a hinderance. I can verify this from personal experience while testing with UK customers. Until we get to the point of using artificial intelligence in the GCU, there's no way that a fairly simple microprocessor can make a better judgement than the driver.
I agree with most of this, but stepping back and taking a look at the future, when/if someone comes up with something on the market besides you (I have no interest in getting into this market at all I have a day job)
I think that's taking things to the extreme. In your scenario, the engine builder has deliberately added something, so it would be perfectly reasonable to ask the question why. However, the GCU in my shift system already has the capability as standard which was developed in other markets. The functionality is actually disabled in firmware, not the GUI, so in effect, it's not there to be enabled.
I think I answered this in my response to Wren, its not about nitrous or even gear chaning alone. It was the argument that if it's locked then I can use it and you can just trust that. Also I'm looking at what can be done by others, not just what/how your system GUI is set up.
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]No room for interpretation there.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]The phrase "direct-acting" could be open to interpretation, but not in the context of the whole paragraph. If the intention was to outlaw all electric/electronic devices then there would be no reason to specifically outlaw pre-selection. A simple "no electronics" would leave no room for doubt.[/FONT]
I agree, but the SCCA is not known for clairty of thought.
[FONT=Univers]True, they mean different things to an electronics engineer, but not to the layman or, I suspect, a lawyer. So, by default, all shift systems other than a manual stick would be outlawed because all have some element of electric/electronic control.[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]A lawyer would hire an expert to testify as to the difference.[/FONT]
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.
An expert in electrics or electronics[FONT=Univers]A lawyer would hire an expert to testify as to the difference
LOL, I like your way of thinking! If I ever need to hire an expert inf the future I'll think of you first.An expert in electrics or electronics
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.
The drag racing boys outlawed electronics to shift their cars. Solution was to go to pneumatics. Electronics is way cheaper. If we outlaw this system, will we not have to outlaw air shifting of any type?
Regardless of the price of the Geartronics kit, wether it be $5k or $7k, I think you're missing the point somewhat. The reality is that there is a minimum cost to commercially produce a system that actually works without smashing the box to bits! It's got nothing to do with the mode of operation or automatic modes etc. but it's got everything to do with the closed-loop shift strategy. It's the essential software development that costs the $.
For several years there have been systems on the market (usually, but not always, solenoid operated) that have absolutely no intelligent control. Essentially you pull the paddle, they bang the lever and hope for the best. On the whole, these systems are a complete waste of money because they often cause gearbox damage with zero performance benefit. There is a system commercially available in the UK for I guess less than £1000. At this price, how come every car on the grid doesn't have one? Simple - they don't actually work well enough to put on a race car.
What I'm getting at is that there are only two sensible choices - either keep the manual shift or spend the minimum $$$ on something that actually works reliably, consistently and safely. The big spend is not to gain extra performance, think of it more as an insurance.
Understand completely. Thanks for the explanation.
Is it possible to define different over-rev limits for each gear?
An answer in simpler terms than maybe what has already been provided: The system needs to know what gear it is in to do the math and know what the rpms would be in the requested gear.
shifters
I primarily wrote the rules for the 600cc MC engines for use in F500. I have also built 8 Van Diemen conversion kits so I was very familiar with the FB rules.
I immediately noticed when originally reading the FB rules that the shift rules left the door wide open for what has happened with these shifting aid mechanisms. IMHO it is a fact of life that they are legal in FB as the rule is currently written.
My opinion is to live with it or change the rule.
Here is how we wrote the 600cc MC engine rule for shifting.
[FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT]4. All gear changes must be initiated and made by the driver. Only mechanical gear shifting mechanisms are allowed. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT]This may include cables, rods, or other mechanical linkage systems. Any other assisted shifting mechanisms are [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT]specifically not allowed. This prohibition shall include electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters, etc. Devices that allow [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT]pre-selected gear changes are also prohibited.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT]5. The clutch assembly is unrestricted except that the clutch engagement system shall be operated solely by driver [/FONT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT]input and may be mechanical or hydraulic in nature. The driver’s hands or feet must manually operate the clutch [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT]and there shall be no operation of the clutch by any assisted method. There shall be no modifications to the engine/[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT]transmission to enable the use of replacement clutch components or assemblies.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT]We wrote the rule specifically to make certain that cost were controlled & that the difference would be the driver wherever possible. We do not expect problems & have not had any with the several cars that are already racing. Of course if this creates more problems than it solves we would revisit this issue in the future. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial-ItalicMT][FONT=Arial-ItalicMT]Thanks ... Jay Novak[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]
Jay, I was told by one FB competitor at the Runoffs that he intends to submit your "mechanical shifters only" rule for effect in FB in 2012. Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
I hope that gets as much traction as my idea to reduce bodywork width to 95 cm. There are quite a lot of FB competitors with some sort of aided shift system.
Not aimed at you Stan, but what could anyone hope to accomplish by changing this rule? It will do nothing to make the class cheaper. It will certainly run some people off and make sure that everyone knows how stable the FB rules are and how well their investment will be protected. I've often been surprised at the bravery of people buying FB cars that would not be eligible in another class.
Hey Wren, what was it you were saying about converting the Citations to Zetecs?
I'd like to a show of hands just how many people have blown up or ruined a gearbox due to over-rev on down shift.
Maybe this shift system isn't worth its benefits of saving a few individuals from damaging their engines versus what it might be doing from recruiting more drivers into our class based on initial investment to get them running.
I know my system is cheap and have not missed one shift all season and it certainly didn't break the bank to put it on the car. I know it isn't as idiot proof as the geartronics system but serves its purpose. (maybe I'm too much of a WANKER)
Those were Tom's first words when he got out of the car after the race. I'm on board for whatever Brandon does. Maybe it's time to write my letter in support of outlawing electronic shifters?
Just passing along the news, Wren...not taking sides.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Isn't your shifter the really clever one with mechanical paddles/cables that pulls on the throttle via cable to blip on down shift? Because that looks and feels really slick. So why would you say potential new FB drivers would be scared off because they think they'd need an expensive shifter when you have proven a simple but ingenious mechanical shifter can work perfectly fine?
Geez, what happened to the F1000 ARRC love fest days when everyone was happy building the class? Go to the Runoffs one year and by the time qualies start people are wanting to change the rules. And to top it off, my taxes are probably going up next year. Damn, its the perfect storm!!!!
Ken
Well, the orange Piper is a bit of wiring away from being fired up for the first time in Zetec form.
Yes, mine is the slick little system that pulls on the back of the throttle pedal. I'm just worried that all this hype about down shifting is giving us bad PR towards new recruits. With all the arguing for the system it seems that the only way to have a realiable shifter is to spend big money.
And as far as people Not thinking we as a group didn't get along at this event they are totally wrong. I didn't see many peple in our class that didn't have big smiles and thought it was a great race. Maybe one, that had a bent up car. A group hug was entirely possible.
Dan's system is really ingeneous. He modified our paddle shifter to adapt his throttle blipper. Dan is allowing us to integrate his throttle blipper into our paddle shifter. We are going to call it the DR Blipper (short for Dr. Dan Robinson)
Thanks ... Jay Novak
I have been attempting to argue only that the system doesn't do any of the auto stuff that people were worried about, not that it is crucial to winning and saving engines.
Have you considered selling your mechanical paddle shifter/blip setup? If it works on track as well as it seems like it would, it seems like it would be a nice alternative to a much pricier setup that weighs a lot more.
Well, that answers my question.
Sorry Jay,
It looks like the D.R. Blipper is out of the bag even before it is ready to market.
Surprised that you would think so. I agree with Neil that the rule is quite explicit with no room for interpretation. (FA has the same rule.) It seems the problem is that the rule is not as intended, not that it's not clear.
I've also heard some talk from a few that wish to ban the system in FB.
However, I believe we have numbers on our side in this issue. From talking to people in the paddock at Road America there seems to be more of us manufacturers/competitors that wish to see the shifter system stay in FB than are those that don't.
Most of the arguements against seem almost borderline paranoid, based on nothing but fear. What if it did this, what if it did that? Well, what if the sky fell in tomorrow? Makes about as much sense.
It's frustrating because it does makes perfect sense how, why, what, where, the system works.
It doesn't do anything more than take what you do with the hand lever shifter and put it on the steering wheel.
That with a little added insurance to help prevent you from blowing up your motor...insurance that this class by the way, badly needs.
EDITED.....(wrote the first one a bit too hot and fast...where's those smiley things when I need them?)
.
Last edited by Thomas Copeland; 09.27.10 at 11:58 PM.
FWIW, I stated above that despite my "what if" questions I don't have an opinion on whether or not it is good/bad should be legal/illegal, I just wanted to educate myself as to the possibilities/capabilities of the system.
I liked F1000 in concept ever since Jeremy got the royal screwing a few years back. F1000 quickly evolved in concept to something that would be out of my reasonable reach. So, I don't care one way or another what the participants of the FB class decide is best for them. What I am attempting to do is educate myself since F500 w/600 power now appeals to me and I'd like to learn what works/doesn't work for the F1000 group so I am a little wiser.
Personally, I feel the motor of the year potential is likely to end up being a bigger rules issue/heated debate if SIRs or IIR's enter the picture, than shifter systems.
Quickshoe, not fair posting my edited qoute!There, I finally found the smiley!
The engine situation was addressed at a meeting on Friday amougst the manufacturers and competitors. While there was a agreement in principal (I'll be sending out the proposal to the manufacturers for their signoff before sending it to the CRB), the engine situation does have a much greater potential to send costs completely out of control. It has the potential of making the cost of putting in the paddle shifter look like chump change.
Last edited by Thomas Copeland; 09.28.10 at 12:27 AM.
Have you sought input from manufacturers and competitors that were not at the Runoffs? Phoenix, for example?
Yes.
Last edited by Thomas Copeland; 09.28.10 at 1:24 AM. Reason: why write a paragraph when one word works
Interesting. I hadn't heard about that meeting. Can we hear more about it and the consensus and/or proposal?
This may be good news for the class, but I know it's been a touchy subject.
IIR? Engine claim rule? :-).
Thanks.
Racer Russ
Palm Coast, FL
No, he hasn't.
Yes, Thomas. Please enlighten us about this meeting. Keep in mind there are a lot more competitors than manufacturers and we all get a vote on any proposal that you've concocted.
Dave Gomberg and I were invited to the meeting...showed up at the appointed time and place, waited alone for 20 minutes and gave up and left. Where ever the meeting was held, it seems not to have included any Club representation. Still, I am looking forward to hearing what they had to say.
Everyone and anyone is free to send in a proposal to the CRB, but your chances of success are always greater with wider "buy-in" than just a handful of proponents. Like with the original FB proposal, getting broad agreement really makes approval go more smoothly.
Tom and Nick, did you discuss a wider range of rules than just the Geartronics issue?
On the topic of engines, did you discuss the preparation rules, or just wring your hands over the BMW?
Did you discuss how to avoid embarrassments like Tom Schwietz' little white wedge of something he claims is "bodywork"?
Anything else we should know about in advance?
Last edited by Stan Clayton; 09.18.13 at 7:54 AM.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
That is embarrasing. White? It doesn't match a damn thing on the car.
We all know that bodywork is anything outside the floor pan, or anything above the lower surface of the car, licked by the air stream. So, the bodywork outside the sidepods is still bodywork.
Stan, you hung around our paddock for hours, staring at us, grumbling under your breath, and photographing our bodywork. Did you really have nothing else to do? How come you never bothered to speak to either of us, instead of just staring from the edge of our paddock spot all morning?
Our bodywork was found non-compliant, and the stewards advised that all we had to do was add a small piece to each outer edge of the diffuser, and it would be fine. It seems dumb to me, but what were we to do? Take the diffuser off before the race? Why don't we just have an overall max width, instead of relating the floor width as a distance from the bodywork edge? 150 cm max, 95 cm max, whatever. FWIW, prior to the ruling, we had assumed the part in question was bodywork because the top and bottom were licked by the airstream, and there was a COA precedent from FA that suggested it would be bodywork. FC rules or similar would be a lot clearer here.
Wren, I thought you were working 16/7s these days...
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Floor does not extend beyond the chassis.
I am, so I have to hang out around the house until time to go in. A cloudy, day time sky makes a terrible background for thermal images of helicopters.Wren, I thought you were working 16/7s these days...
Amusing that those who want to go strictly by the wording of the rules in another class suddenly want to ignore the wording of the rules in this class.
Especially after all of the discussions about this very thing here on Apex when the rules were being written........
Hang out in front of your paddock for hours? You flatter yourself. No, Josh, it was for days...13 of them to be precise, since that's how many days I was paddocked in the very next spot. If I appeared to be hanging out in front of your space, it was an accident of geography.
Oh, and it took maybe 3 minutes to take the photos, which includes changing cameras when the first one didn't work (still haven't figured out what is wrong with it).
Which is why I asked Tom and Nick if their meeting included discussing the bodywork rules.Our bodywork was found non-compliant, and the stewards advised that all we had to do was add a small piece to each outer edge of the diffuser, and it would be fine. It seems dumb to me, but what were we to do? Take the diffuser off before the race? Why don't we just have an overall max width, instead of relating the floor width as a distance from the bodywork edge? 150 cm max, 95 cm max, whatever. FWIW, prior to the ruling, we had assumed the part in question was bodywork because the top and bottom were licked by the airstream, and there was a COA precedent from FA that suggested it would be bodywork. FC rules or similar would be a lot clearer here.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote