Geartronics Shift System

[JohnPaul]

I think its very much a stretch to say that the Motec is allowed now. The piggyback electronics allowed are things like power commanders.

the rules state: [FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed.[/FONT][FONT=Univers]Devices that modify inputs to the ECU (e.g., Power Commander)may be used. Stand-alone after market ECUs are not permitted.[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]So....I'm not an english major but it seems that as long as the Motec isn't "stand alone" (along with the stock ECU), as in the case of the Philly motorsports car, it's legal....right? maybe not but that's what I'd guess.[/FONT]

[/FONT][/FONT]

[RussMcB]

[FONT=Verdana]Looks like the direction is going into some type of quazi spec engine rule. How does a restrictor work? I can have a fully worked 200 HP engine and put on a restrictor and it'll be right at 180hp? will all the differenct engines be right at 180hp?probably not and that in itself is not fair. [/FONT]<snip>

That may not be fair (perfectly equal), but imagine how much more equal it will be.

A class where the top 10 or so guys in the country are around 2 HP within each other will produce much better racing and will highlight the best drivers, chassis and tuning. Isn't it better to see who has that best combination, rather than throwing in a big engine variable? I mean, who cares who can produce the most HP? It's probably going to be the person spending the most money.

An IIR (or whatever is used) will also help people with lower budgets be much more competitive.

I think 180 HP is a great cap level. Someone with an engine from a few years back could still be in the hunt. And stay in the hunt with their engine investment. Wouldn't it be great to have 3-4 inexpensive engines in your garage, all of them able to install and stay competitive?

[Jnovak]

As the builder of our Nova-Diemen FB kits and a future builder of dedicated FB cars I have a stake in the future of the class & thus the rules.



In general I think that the current rules are nearly spot on. My comments below:

• Costs to the racing customer are of primary importance to the future of FB. We must do all we can to keep costs reasonable, then the class will get many new racers in including plently of those who would not participate if costs go much higher.
• Stock engines & ECUs with allowed piggyback units are a great solution & do a great job of keeping costs within reason.
• The ONLY advantage to stand alone ECUs is to those who want to do a serious engine development program. The cost of an installed Motec or other system can EASILY exceed $10K not including any dyno development time. I vote for no stand alone ECUs.
• Auto-blip, semi-auto shifting: I am not crazy about this as I am certain that there are performance advantages available. However, the rules are written & many have invested their $$$. That said, I am against shifting aids, period, but unless there is a large consensus to change the rule I would leave it alone. However if the CRB asks for input I will support a no shifting aids rule.
• Engines: I do think that there should be some reasonable limit placed on the HP & the maximum RPM of the engines. I do not know what that limit should be but we are getting pretty close. There are some simple technological solutions that WILL work and the CRB can & will move if they think it is warranted. I suggest that members of the FB community form some sort of small committee to explore solutions that are in the best interests of the future of FB.
• Body/floor: Clean up the existing rule. Do not reduce the maximum width to 95 cm. If you have not built cars for customers you cannot imagine the associated tooling costs to change this rule for those who have actually built side pods to this rule.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Mike B]

[FONT=Verdana]Looks like the direction is going into some type of quazi spec engine rule. [/FONT]

No, it's not. If you don't want an open engine rule, a spec engine rule, or a rolling year moratorium, send a letter to the CRB when they ask for it. You won't be the only one.

It's that simple.

[Wren]

• There was a "manufacturer's" meeting at the Runoffs.
• Copeland, Belling, and Wren attended that meeting (don't know which actual manufacturers attended).
• Copeland didn't take very good notes.

- It wasn't a manufacturer's meeting. It was an FB meeting. Off the top of my head I remember Coop, Anna, Hill, Jeff from Stohr, George Dean, 4 Firman west guys, Mclaughlin Jr. and Sr., Sal, Beattie, and me. It sounds like more people were invited and got bad directions on where it was being held.

Thomas, you seem to think that the direction of this class will be dictated by the manufacturers.

That really wasn't what it was about. My impression was that it was an effort to get people in the same place at the same time talking. We were already there, so why not? If someone could have gotten the people who were there to agree on something, it probably would have been worth considering. Unfortunately, that is herding cats.

[FONT=Verdana]Looks like the direction is going into some type of quazi spec engine rule. How does a restrictor work? I can have a fully worked 200 HP engine and put on a restrictor and it'll be right at 180hp? will all the differenct engines be right at 180hp?probably not and that in itself is not fair. how is that done? ECU programming? air intake? what?

[/FONT]

I asked George that question and he said the restrictors would likely be on a per engine basis. The 180hp rule is not a hard and fast number that triggers an immediate IIR for the class, but the CRB is likely to pay a lot of attention when the numbers go beyond that. We are already past that point with some of the claims about 2009 Suzuki motors and we don't have IIR yet. I think everyone can take a deep breath.


[FONT=Verdana]

Now it just seems that people are trying to change rules for personal preferences not for the class. You have a group of guys that want the shifters and other that say no, but the ones that say no to the shifters want the aftermarket ECU's and that doesn't sit well with some of the shifter guys. Then you have anyone that likes the idea of not having a restriction on HP's screwed by anyone that isn't interested in new competition from a newer motor. this is getting crazy.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
Don't worry too much. That is SCCA racing. I think that rules changes for 2011 have to have already been submitted anyways.

[FONT=Verdana] The rules seem to be working the way they are: shifter allowed, Piggyback electronics (motec) with Stock ECU allowed,

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
This was the subject of discussion also. There are some that believe that a motec unit is completely ok and some that do not. The argument that they are ok seems to be based on the rule that as long as you can pull the harness from the stock ecu and the motor dies, then it is legal. The problem is that rule is nowhere in the gcr.


[FONT=Verdana]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana] Stock 1 liter engines regardless of HP allowed. What's the problem? None of these things seems to give anyone any advantage anyway, I'll use Niki Coello as an example again: Low HP motor, No Motec, no shifter= kicks everyones ass[/FONT]

agreed.

Why does an open ECU make it easier? If the stock ECU is cheaper and works just fine why go to something that will cost more? If an open ECU is allowed would that not allow an increase in revs and in turn a potential motor longevity issue?

I have heard George and Arnie say that no one is going to make more power on a MOTEC than a stock ecu. I have heard that KWS agrees, bu I have not heard it from him.

[DonArm]

I think that restricting engines to only engines running in the class at this time is absolutely ridiculous !

As far as the ECU rules that everyone is concerned about and everyone pointing at the Honda. A lot of that is because most everyone bitching about the ECU rule has the Suzuki and it seems they are wanting restrict the class (people molding) so they won't have to worry about changing to a different motor. Maybe.
First the ECU rules as stated are absolutely incorrect in how it's written. None of the mentioned add on modules, Power Commander, Bazzaz modify the inputs, they all are placed AFTER the ECU they modify the outputs. So with that said using a standalone ECU is NO different than using the other mentioned modules. The person I'm working with to develop the Honda for my car has already told me that the engine has limits and the standalone piggybacked to the factory ECU WILL NOT produce much if any more power than what the current motors in use. The standalone will only be used to make the engine run appropriately, adjusting fuel and or timing maps, which is also done by flashing the factory Suzuki ECU.
An appropriate way to write the ECU rules could be as follows.

Current:
The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed.
Devices that modify the inputs to the ECU (eg, Power Commander ......) may be used. Standalone aftermarket ECU's are not permitted.

Proposed:
The stock ECU must be used. The ECU fuel and timing maps may be modified. Devices that modify the outputs from the stock ECU to the engine (e.g. Power Commander, stan alone ECU's used only as a piggyback unit and Bazzaz units...) may be used.
A stand alone aftermarket ECU may not be used by itself.

If your going to use TRUE factory ECU's then reflashing of the ECU should also be illegal, because technically after you flash the program it not the TRUE factory ECU other than the box itself.

Rather than looking for ways to restrict the class, since it is new and we're trying to get it to grow. People should not be looking to exclude rather include.
People should be somewhat grateful that someone is trying to develop something new to add to the class. I'm spending my own money, which I don't have a lot of, on having a new dry sump system for the Honda made ( thanks to Jesse Brittson and Steve L. for the help) and developing a new motor for the class. Btw, a standalone is cheaper than the Geartronics system or the Proshift 3
Why do I want to be different and use the Honda, BECAUSE, I like the product. I raced motocross for years on a Honda and never had an engine fail on me nor a transmission break.
I've been reading and researching this issue for over a year now and trying to decide and what class to run. Last year I made the decision after multiple discussions with Steve L. and other people and looking at the other options I felt the Citation was the best choice along with Honda power and the FB class was the way to go because of what your allowed to do to the cars.
Lastly I think opening up the engine to modifications WILL kill the class.
Ok, I'm the new guy so let the flames begin

[DonArm]

As the builder of our Nova-Diemen FB kits and a future builder of dedicated FB cars I have a stake in the future of the class & thus the rules.



In general I think that the current rules are nearly spot on. My comments below:

• Costs to the racing customer are of primary importance to the future of FB. We must do all we can to keep costs reasonable, then the class will get many new racers in including plently of those who would not participate if costs go much higher.
• Stock engines & ECUs with allowed piggyback units are a great solution & do a great job of keeping costs within reason.
• The ONLY advantage to stand alone ECUs is to those who want to do a serious engine development program. The cost of an installed Motec or other system can EASILY exceed $10K not including any dyno development time. I vote for no stand alone ECUs.
• Auto-blip, semi-auto shifting: I am not crazy about this as I am certain that there are performance advantages available. However, the rules are written & many have invested their $$$. That said, I am against shifting aids, period, but unless there is a large consensus to change the rule I would leave it alone. However if the CRB asks for input I will support a no shifting aids rule.
• Engines: I do think that there should be some reasonable limit placed on the HP & the maximum RPM of the engines. I do not know what that limit should be but we are getting pretty close. There are some simple technological solutions that WILL work and the CRB can & will move if they think it is warranted. I suggest that members of the FB community form some sort of small committee to explore solutions that are in the best interests of the future of FB.
• Body/floor: Clean up the existing rule. Do not reduce the maximum width to 95 cm. If you have not built cars for customers you cannot imagine the associated tooling costs to change this rule for those who have actually built side pods to this rule.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

A standalone system with tuning WILL NOT cost 10k absolutely not.
The most expensive standalone for the bike motor is the Pectel for $3300, if you want a custom harness then that's another $2000. If you include all of the sensors that you would use for an open wheel car the you could reach 10k but NOT just with the ECU and tuning, NO WAY. I already have a price quote.

[Mike B]

- It wasn't a manufacturer's meeting. It was an FB meeting. Off the top of my head I remember Coop, Anna, Hill, Jeff from Stohr, George Dean, 4 Firman west guys, Mclaughlin Jr. and Sr., Sal, Beattie, and me. It sounds like more people were invited and got bad directions on where it was being held.

Well, dang it. I guess the only we've established is that Copeland didn't take very good notes.

Did you get my text, Wren?

[VehDyn]

No flames. Welcome.

I have a question though. Isnt using a stand alone to modify the outputs effectively having a standalone ECU?

Its no big deal if that is what people want to allow. I think it would be an expensive proposition to try to fully develop an engine like the Suzuki to be better than a flashed ECU. i mentioned before that I polled the DSR guys and basically even with open engine rules, only 2 or 3 use a Motec. Hasty posted a while back agreeing with you that an ECU like a Motec may be needed to defeat some of the systems on the newer engines meant to protect them.

[DonArm]

No flames. Welcome.

I have a question though. Isnt using a stand alone to modify the outputs effectively having a standalone ECU?

Its no big deal if that is what people want to allow. I think it would be an expensive proposition to try to fully develop an engine like the Suzuki to be better than a flashed ECU. i mentioned before that I polled the DSR guys and basically even with open engine rules, only 2 or 3 use a Motec. Hasty posted a while back agreeing with you that an ECU like a Motec may be needed to defeat some of the systems on the newer engines meant to protect them.

The way the current rules are written that is left up to interpetation. . If that's true then the Power Commander and Bazzaz or any other device such as the device that modifys the engine ignition cut / rev limit at high RPM to limit speed on the bikes all of which modify outputs could be considered the same. If you use the standalone just like you would use the Power Commander or the Bazzaz or the ignition cut override then whats the diff?
From my multiple discussions with Georg Dean he feels it's completely within the rules to use a factory ECU with a standalone piggybacked to it as long as the factory ecu is in the system and the system fails to operate if the factory ECU is unplugged.

[JohnPaul]

• Auto-blip, semi-auto shifting: I am not crazy about this as I am certain that there are performance advantages available. However, the rules are written & many have invested their $$$. That said, I am against shifting aids, period, but unless there is a large consensus to change the rule I would leave it alone. However if the CRB asks for input I will support a no shifting aids rule.

Not to be a wise ass (I have alot of respect for you) but I have to call you out on this: aren't you involved in the Dr. Blipper thing? isn't it a shifting aid also? are you in favor of that system? what's the difference if it is mechanical or electronic if it is doing the same thing? in both cases the driver doesn't have to blip the throttle with his foot. am I missing something?

[Thomas Copeland]

Mike B, seriously man, save your bullets. I'm only a messenger so I make lousy target practice (don't make me "unfriend" you on Facebook" )<can't get the smiley>

I didn't take notes at the meeting because at the time I hadn't been asked to write up a proposal and a lot of the stuff that was said in that meeting probably better off forgetting anyway.

I'm not writing stuff up in a "vaccum". What do you think all this is about? To get view points. Nothings even been written yet (and maybe I'm not the one that should be writting it up). Nothing has been submiited to the CRB. You are getting way ahead of yourself.

I already wrote more than once here that I won't write anything unless there is a majority. From the looks of it maybe we shouldn't even do it then.

I know there are more prople involved in FB than those that showed up at the runoffs. But it was the largest bio-mass of FB participants around so that's why we took the time to have a meeting. It wasn't just the manufacturers there. I was expecting that I might have to ask all those potential future FB propects their views too. Where ever they are.

All I know is what I've been told and saw. A certain engine builder of note who the SCCA listens to stated he was (no notes, purely by memory, but my memory is pretty good):

1. Going to suggest that FB adopt open engine rule similar to DSR.

2. That he had been contacted about the safety of the FB cars considering the speeds they were going.

3. There was a some kind of trigger mechanism based on speed/time where some cars would be given some kind of restriction either weight or restrictors. He didn't know.

4. We had a meeting. A lot of people talked.

--END OF STORY. oh forgot my smiley again.

[Brands]

Why would one want an open engine rule if there are rumblings that the cars are getting too quick and IIR may be regulated in?

[Mike B]

All I know is what I've been told and saw. A certain engine builder of note who the SCCA listens to stated he was (no notes, purely by memory, but my memory is pretty good):

1. Going to suggest that FB adopt open engine rule similar to DSR.

2. That he had been contacted about the safety of the FB cars considering the speeds they were going.

3. There was a some kind of trigger mechanism based on speed/time where some cars would be given some kind of restriction either weight or restrictors. He didn't know.

4. We had a meeting. A lot of people talked.

--END OF STORY. oh forgot my smiley again.

Sure, but you also stated that there was agreement on an open ECU (Wren had to subsequently correct you on that) and that Dustin Wright was in favor of an open ECU (Dustin had to subsequently correct you on that). Why do I get the feeling that George Dean will be coming along soon to correct the quoted text (at least #1)?
Hence the poor note-taking joke.

I'm not writing stuff up in a "vaccum". What do you think all this is about? To get view points. Nothings even been written yet (and maybe I'm not the one that should be writting it up). Nothing has been submiited to the CRB. You are getting way ahead of yourself.

I already wrote more than once here that I won't write anything unless there is a majority. From the looks of it maybe we shouldn't even do it then.

You can't get view points or a majority if you don't lay out what you want view points or a majority on. Write up a semi-formal proposal or at least a coherent sentence with a single idea so we know what you want input on. There have been at least 4 different thoughts on engines, 2 on ECUs, and a couple on shifters (not by you.) Distill it down so it makes sense and we'll be more than happy to tell you what we think.

[Jnovak]

A standalone system with tuning WILL NOT cost 10k absolutely not.
The most expensive standalone for the bike motor is the Pectel for $3300, if you want a custom harness then that's another $2000. If you include all of the sensors that you would use for an open wheel car the you could reach 10k but NOT just with the ECU and tuning, NO WAY. I already have a price quote.

Sorry if I offended you Don, My quoted price was for a Motec & I have actually seen the invoices to my customers & they are actually way over $10K for a fully configured Motec stand alone ECU. Who will do your programming & how much will it cost to do it?

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[JohnPaul]

I know there are more prople involved in FB than those that showed up at the runoffs. But it was the largest bio-mass of FB participants around so that's why we took the time to have a meeting. It wasn't just the manufacturers there. I was expecting that I might have to ask all those potential future FB propects their views too. Where ever they are.

[FONT=Verdana]There are a lot of strong viewpoint (on a bunch of different topics), seems like there may have to be an FB community board that puts together these questions and puts them to a vote amongst all registered FB owner/drivers, manufacturers/builders and relevant experts. There are questions for just about everything: engine, electronics, bodywork etc. , Get all the tally and hand them to the CRB and see what they say. It's simple: I always did good with multiple choice and circling the one you like: so circle away:[/FONT]

Engine: 1) same rules [FONT=Verdana]2)[/FONT] HP restrictor[FONT=Verdana] 3)[/FONT] 3 year moratorium [FONT=Verdana]4) open engine 5)[/FONT] same rules with specs non performance (HP producing) parts for reliability.

ECU: 1) same rules [FONT=Verdana]2)[/FONT] aftermarket ECU [FONT=Verdana]3)[/FONT] Stock ECU with NO flashing

Shifter: 1) same rules w/ autoblip [FONT=Verdana]2) [/FONT]no auto blip [FONT=Verdana]3) [/FONT]mechanical autoblip

Bodywork: 1) same rules [FONT=Verdana]2)[/FONT] blah blah blah[FONT=Verdana] 3)[/FONT] keep/get rid of the crazy citation wheel things

[FONT=Verdana]I think you get the drift, And I'm sure there are a bunch other things that need to be address'd. . Get everyone vote on the record and make their own destiny. I sure don't think it should be restricted to a small group that make these decisions for everyone, I think there needs to be some new eyes so nothing slips through the cracks this time.[/FONT]

[Jnovak]

Not to be a wise ass (I have alot of respect for you) but I have to call you out on this: aren't you involved in the Dr. Blipper thing? isn't it a shifting aid also? are you in favor of that system? what's the difference if it is mechanical or electronic if it is doing the same thing? in both cases the driver doesn't have to blip the throttle with his foot. am I missing something?

The D.R. Blipper is strictly a mechanical system completely operated by driver input alone. No assistance by any other system at all. To me that is the consideration, no controller, no computers etc. The driver does it all.

Come to the ARRC to see the D.R Blipper in action on our 600cc Suzuki powered F500.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[brownslane]

Wow, you guys have kept me reading for the last two hours!

I must say I am IMPRESSED that the tone of the earlier posts has now moderated into a much more respectful mode...you guys are doing a good job!

I see the thread has also now moved onto other subjects that just the shifter system. As a DSR guy but also one whose heart is in FB (I built the car that Jeremy qualified at MidOhio that SCCA tried to ban)...so I kinda am one of the earliest FB guys!

From an outsider, I am very impressed with the quality of the cars, the level of committment from both manufacturers and drivers.....and I see that FB has a bright future....the cars are pretty, quick, show a high level of engineering and preparation and are darned fine to watch on the track.

From the DSR side, I share the voiced concerns of the cost escalation potential of open motors. You have all heard and know that the cost of being at the front in DSR is getting up there; I know of one competitor who had wind tunnel time to prepare for the runoffs. These guys also budget for three or four sets of tires each weekend. The engines can be had (reasonably competitive) for around $6 to $7G's and are now pretty reliable...as long as you do not over-rev. You should have at least three engines to be at the front. And the TOP engines are probably running close to $10Gs per unit. Too expensive for my poor budget.

My recommendation is to stick with what has worked for you up until now. Leave the engineering open to evolution; in fact, encourage that part of the equation. This is the part of the class that encourages ingenuity and lateral thinking and innovation!! This part of the rules will keep every car from looking like the next one....something I agree you can see in DSR! Guys like Lathrop and Novak, and Dustin at Phoenix and Ralph Firman, and others like Jeremy Hill (built everything himself) are what make this class so cool! Not all the cars look alike!

You do NOT need 200 HP to be quick and competitive; Keeping to stock engines will allow everyone access to decent performance (quite brilliant, actually) from ebay and other sources. This not only keeps costs down, but also allows everyone to draw water from the same well, so to speak. The moment you move the cost of engines from something akin to capital cost and move it to an expense item, where a fresh engine will be needed every couple of races, I suggest you will lose a lot of your base of competitors and will restrict the number of potential new competitors; they will just not be able to afford the ticket to play.

I agree that, with some development of the chassis and aero in FB, these cars have at least three or more seconds in them as they sit...just wait until next year; the pole will be two seconds quicker than this year!

If somebody wants a car with FA power, let go and buy a FA. The ATTRACTION of FB is that the cars perform so well with just what they have! And they sound better!

Finally, as one who is quite well versed in shifter technology, having worked with and installed a number of the "competitor's) systems, I would like to offer an observation; The shifter does not really make the car more competitive; If someone tells you it will save a second a lap is full of themselves and horse$%^&! What it DOES do, is:

1: saves engines from overrevs on downshifts (close to 80% of overrevs are on the downshift)

2, The smooth downshifts are MUCH easier on the gearbox and the engine..they are so smooth with the blipper that you cannot feel them...at all!

3. This smoothness of downshifts allows us a greater ability to manage threshold braking...one, because the downshifts will no longer unsettle rear traction as the blip is exact and adjustable and repeatable, allowing the driver to anticipate and accomodate the specific handling characteristics he has established with the blipper pre-set.

4. For newbies (or old guys like me) the downshifts will be taken care of, allowing me 100% concentration on just my braking force and the apex....a lot of the variable of corner entry will now be removed from the equation. Someone said it earlier; the "enhanced" downshift will allow me to be closer to you quick guys....the field would be closer and more competitive throughout the field.

I am sorry to butt in, but Mario had made me aware of this thread and I just HAD to pipe in!


I am not going to argue the merits of the various choices you have before you; rather I just wanted to point out what a GREAT JOB you all have done to date! And from where I sit, if you just stick to the basic tenets you set out in the beginning and not vary too much from it, you will continue to experience the growth and success you have had to date.

FB ROCKS!!

Tom Owen

[JohnPaul]

The D.R. Blipper is strictly a mechanical system completely operated by driver input alone. No assistance by any other system at all. To me that is the consideration, no controller, no computers etc. The driver does it all.

Come to the ARRC to see the D.R Blipper in action on our 600cc Suzuki powered F500.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

I'm really interested in seeing it. But you wrote that if the CRB asked you, you would tell them you are not in favor of auto blip or any shifting aid. Wouldn't the Dr. Blip be considered a shifting aid? it's basically an auto blip (hence the name Dr. Blip) or do you mean any type of computerized/electronic shifting aid? I just don't understand the difference, they both need to be intiated by the driver (just pull on a paddle shifter) and they both do the same thing. I don't see the advantage of the computerized version and why you'd be against it. The only reason why one is better then the other is that the mechanical one would (I'd hope) be cheaper (which is a great)

[Wren]

• Body/floor: Clean up the existing rule. Do not reduce the maximum width to 95 cm. If you have not built cars for customers you cannot imagine the associated tooling costs to change this rule for those who have actually built side pods to this rule.

I've got a reasonable idea of what it should cost, and it is less than what people have spent on shifters.

I don't seriously expect that the bodywork will be reduced in size and I won't even bother writing a letter to the CRB.

I do hate the bodywork and aluminum caliper rule.

Well, dang it. I guess the only we've established is that Copeland didn't take very good notes.

Did you get my text, Wren?

No text. I'm stuck in a building with 18" concrete walls with copper mesh embedded in them.

No flames. Welcome.

I have a question though. Isnt using a stand alone to modify the outputs effectively having a standalone ECU?

The only one I have any idea about is the one that Sal has on his car. He uses the ECU as a switchable ground. He is not trying to hide anything, is acting in good faith, and very up front about what he is doing. I don't think it is legal.

The reality is that I can replace his stock ecu with a toggle switch. That's not piggybacking. It is a stand alone ECU.

From my multiple discussions with Georg Dean he feels it's completely within the rules to use a factory ECU with a standalone piggybacked to it as long as the factory ecu is in the system and the system fails to operate if the factory ECU is unplugged.

I've heard that from George and Sal. That rule is not in the GCR. My definition of piggybacking is that the car should start and idle without the piggyback system in place.

[FONT=Verdana] 3)[/FONT] keep/get rid of the crazy citation wheel things

The whole time that this has come up, I just keep wondering about the mentality that says that something that is above the lower surface of the car and licked by the airstream is not bodywork. That is specifically designated as bodywork by the GCR. Can anyone explain why it is a problem?

Also since when are integrating wheel fairings into the body work some kind of exotic idea?

Not picking on you and I think you are only mentioning an issue, just quoting you.

[Mike B]

Wow, you guys have kept me reading for the last two hours!

I must say I am IMPRESSED that the tone of the earlier posts has now moderated into a much more respectful mode...you guys are doing a good job!

I see the thread has also now moved onto other subjects that just the shifter system. As a DSR guy but also one whose heart is in FB (I built the car that Jeremy qualified at MidOhio that SCCA tried to ban)...so I kinda am one of the earliest FB guys!

From an outsider, I am very impressed with the quality of the cars, the level of committment from both manufacturers and drivers.....and I see that FB has a bright future....the cars are pretty, quick, show a high level of engineering and preparation and are darned fine to watch on the track.

From the DSR side, I share the voiced concerns of the cost escalation potential of open motors. You have all heard and know that the cost of being at the front in DSR is getting up there; I know of one competitor who had wind tunnel time to prepare for the runoffs. These guys also budget for three or four sets of tires each weekend. The engines can be had (reasonably competitive) for around $6 to $7G's and are now pretty reliable...as long as you do not over-rev. You should have at least three engines to be at the front. And the TOP engines are probably running close to $10Gs per unit. Too expensive for my poor budget.

My recommendation is to stick with what has worked for you up until now. Leave the engineering open to evolution; in fact, encourage that part of the equation. This is the part of the class that encourages ingenuity and lateral thinking and innovation!! This part of the rules will keep every car from looking like the next one....something I agree you can see in DSR! Guys like Lathrop and Novak, and Dustin at Phoenix and Ralph Firman, and others like Jeremy Hill (built everything himself) are what make this class so cool! Not all the cars look alike!

You do NOT need 200 HP to be quick and competitive; Keeping to stock engines will allow everyone access to decent performance (quite brilliant, actually) from ebay and other sources. This not only keeps costs down, but also allows everyone to draw water from the same well, so to speak. The moment you move the cost of engines from something akin to capital cost and move it to an expense item, where a fresh engine will be needed every couple of races, I suggest you will lose a lot of your base of competitors and will restrict the number of potential new competitors; they will just not be able to afford the ticket to play.

I agree that, with some development of the chassis and aero in FB, these cars have at least three or more seconds in them as they sit...just wait until next year; the pole will be two seconds quicker than this year!

If somebody wants a car with FA power, let go and buy a FA. The ATTRACTION of FB is that the cars perform so well with just what they have! And they sound better!

Finally, as one who is quite well versed in shifter technology, having worked with and installed a number of the "competitor's) systems, I would like to offer an observation; The shifter does not really make the car more competitive; If someone tells you it will save a second a lap is full of themselves and horse$%^&! What it DOES do, is:

1: saves engines from overrevs on downshifts (close to 80% of overrevs are on the downshift)

2, The smooth downshifts are MUCH easier on the gearbox and the engine..they are so smooth with the blipper that you cannot feel them...at all!

3. This smoothness of downshifts allows us a greater ability to manage threshold braking...one, because the downshifts will no longer unsettle rear traction as the blip is exact and adjustable and repeatable, allowing the driver to anticipate and accomodate the specific handling characteristics he has established with the blipper pre-set.

4. For newbies (or old guys like me) the downshifts will be taken care of, allowing me 100% concentration on just my braking force and the apex....a lot of the variable of corner entry will now be removed from the equation. Someone said it earlier; the "enhanced" downshift will allow me to be closer to you quick guys....the field would be closer and more competitive throughout the field.

I am sorry to butt in, but Mario had made me aware of this thread and I just HAD to pipe in!


I am not going to argue the merits of the various choices you have before you; rather I just wanted to point out what a GREAT JOB you all have done to date! And from where I sit, if you just stick to the basic tenets you set out in the beginning and not vary too much from it, you will continue to experience the growth and success you have had to date.

FB ROCKS!!

Tom Owen

I've quoted this entire post because this is the best one I've read in a long time (except the part about the shifters...)

Please read it thoroughly. If you don't, here is an excerpt that should end this thread:

My recommendation is to stick with what has worked for you up until now. Leave the engineering open to evolution; in fact, encourage that part of the equation. This is the part of the class that encourages ingenuity and lateral thinking and innovation!! This part of the rules will keep every car from looking like the next one....something I agree you can see in DSR! Guys like Lathrop and Novak, and Dustin at Phoenix and Ralph Firman, and others like Jeremy Hill (built everything himself) are what make this class so cool! Not all the cars look alike!

No, the rules are not perfect, just like every other class in the SCCA. But there must be something good about them for the class to have attracted 8 different manufacturers in its 3 years of existence and grown to the point it has, with more growth on the horizon in 2011.

Don't f#@k it up now.

[Daryl DeArman]

He uses the ECU as a switchable ground. He is not trying to hide anything, is acting in good faith, and very up front about what he is doing. I don't think it is legal.

The reality is that I can replace his stock ecu with a toggle switch. That's not piggybacking. It is a stand alone ECU.

My hat's off to him for creative interpretation. While his system may not be what the rule-writers envisioned it certainly meets the letter of the rule. If the system will not work without his "stock ECU" in place it isn't a stand alone system. Currently there isn't language in the rule stating what the stock ECU must control.

I've heard that from George and Sal. That rule is not in the GCR. My definition of piggybacking is that the car should start and idle without the piggyback system in place.

That's a good start, and I like the theory/direction. However, what is to say that the OEM ECU controls the start circuit and everything on the motor until RPMS exceed 1500 and then it becomes only a ground for the piggybacked ECU? Essentially we have the same end result.

As to the OPEN motor situation with IIR's. CR ratios and Cams will be manipulated to take make the IIR's less effective. NASCRAP ran into that problem a long time ago with their restrictor plate motors. Teams soon discovered that putting the CR through the rough compensated.

[Jnovak]

I'm really interested in seeing it. But you wrote that if the CRB asked you, you would tell them you are not in favor of auto blip or any shifting aid. Wouldn't the Dr. Blip be considered a shifting aid? it's basically an auto blip (hence the name Dr. Blip) or do you mean any type of computerized/electronic shifting aid? I just don't understand the difference, they both need to be intiated by the driver (just pull on a paddle shifter) and they both do the same thing. I don't see the advantage of the computerized version and why you'd be against it. The only reason why one is better then the other is that the mechanical one would (I'd hope) be cheaper (which is a great)

I estimate that the total added cost for the D.R. Blipper will be less than $200. Of course we have to pay a huge fee to the inventor Dan Robinson.

Yes they both are initiated by the driver but the driver with the D.R. Blipper actually completely controls the actual timeing & setup if the system. The driver can still make mistakes.

The main reason I am not in favor of the auto-blip systems is that they cost an arm & a leg & remove control & skill requirements from the driver. IMHO racing is supposed to be first about the driver & not the technology. My favorite quote is: "This is CLUB RACING, not FORMULA 1". However I am an old fart & there are many who do not agree with me.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[mousecatcher]

The shifter does not really make the car more competitive; If someone tells you it will save a second a lap is full of themselves and horse$%^&! What it DOES do, is:
...
4. For newbies (or old guys like me) the downshifts will be taken care of, allowing me 100% concentration on just my braking force and the apex....a lot of the variable of corner entry will now be removed from the equation.

And even for very good drivers, you don't think that's worth .07s per corner (aka 1s per lap @RA)? For a FF, probably not. But for a car with the performance of an FB? MOST drivers aren't going to be as good as the top 3, and that means MOST drivers will need the shifter to be competitive. I think the argument is cost and if MOST drivers can gain time from a shifter, then MOST drivers will be "forced" to buy one to claw their way forward.

Of course it doesn't increase the ULTIMATE performance of the car; the ultimate driver will still be able to extract the ultimate performance without a shifter aid. But there are very few ultimate drivers.

[JohnPaul]

I estimate that the total added cost for the D.R. Blipper will be less than $200. Of course we have to pay a huge fee to the inventor Dan Robinson.

Yes they both are initiated by the driver but the driver with the D.R. Blipper actually completely controls the actual timeing & setup if the system. The driver can still make mistakes.

The main reason I am not in favor of the auto-blip systems is that they cost an arm & a leg & remove control & skill requirements from the driver. IMHO racing is supposed to be first about the driver & not the technology. My favorite quote is: "This is CLUB RACING, not FORMULA 1". However I am an old fart & there are many who do not agree with me.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

I don't think you are against auto blip system so much, I think you don't like the rev-matching thing that won't allow the chosen gear to engage...I'm sort of on the fence about how I feel about that technology but since I don't feel it really makes any performance differnce, except that is probably better on the motor, I don't mind it. My auto blip doesn't do that, it just blips the throttle based on your adjustments and you have to figure out what works. Sort of how you'd think you'd adjust a Dr. Blip. Then when you shift it blips and that shift goes in regardless of where your RPM's are. I think that is how most of these auto blips work. And if you ask me I feel your Dr. Blip does basically the same thing: an auto blip shifting aid (except that it will cost $200!!!). I think you guys are going to do real well with that thing!

[John Mosteller]

The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed.
Devices that modify the inputs to the ECU (eg, Power Commander ......) may be used. Standalone aftermarket ECU's are not permitted.

I was in on the original dialog on the engine rules and we put what was allowed (stock ECU with a Power Commander or equivalent to tune the engine for a different exhaust,air box etc.We put Standalone aftermarket ECU's not permitted to keep the $5000 to $10000 ECU's (Motec,Pectel etc.)out of the class.We didn't put they are not allowed except when piggbacked ,we put they are NOT ALLOWED.

The original class philosophy was to use inexpensive readly available 1L motorcycle engines from wrecked bikes.We didn't want $5k to $10k ECU's on $1200 engines.That is also the reason that the shifter deal is causing a fuss.The rule the way it is allows it but the intent at the time was for systems run with relays or solenoids.It may be legal but it is not fitting well with the original class philosophy to have $6k to$7k shift system for a $1200 motor transmission.

I personaly think $6k shift system is bad for class growth.The appeal of cheap engine/transmissions is not there when it appears to those looking at this class that they will have to have a shifter that cost more than a FF engine. I also agree with Jay it is a driver aid and I feel racing is about driving skill which includes shifting.I know one DSR Yamaha engine lasted several years,won three national championships with a manual shifter and was never blown up or had the transmission damaged.It doesn't appear that Coello has any trouble without it.The FA's don't appear to have trouble with manual shifting and appeared in the video to be faster and brake later than the FB's.The shifter will mainly allow someone be competitive with less shifting skill.

[glenn cooper]

...

I was in on the original dialog on the engine rules and we put what was allowed (stock ECU with a Power Commander or equivalent to tune the engine for a different exhaust,air box etc.We put Standalone aftermarket ECU's not permitted to keep the $5000 to $10000 ECU's (Motec,Pectel etc.)out of the class.We didn't put they are not allowed except when piggbacked ,we put they are NOT ALLOWED.

Fully agreed. Funny thing though - I went to the dyno a few weeks back w/ a very experienced, top notch m/c engine tuner. We made absolutely zero more HP w/ the damned Bazzaz piggyback unit. Perhaps it was a "bad one", new in the box, or maybe, just maybe the Suzuki guys really got it good to begin with and the piggybacks are only needed for modified engines, whether those mods be different fuel, or more compression, or??? Our stock engines run pretty damned good on the STOCK ECU.

The original class philosophy was to use inexpensive readly available 1L motorcycle engines from wrecked bikes.We didn't want $5k to $10k ECU's on $1200 engines.That is also the reason that the shifter deal is causing a fuss.The rule the way it is allows it but the intent at the time was for systems run with relays or solenoids.It may be legal but it is not fitting well with the original class philosophy to have $6k to$7k shift system for a $1200 motor transmission.

Sounds retarded, doesn't it. Except for the fact that you can spend how much on dampers - 5 or 10 grand? Or much, much more...
Here's my take on that: The converted VD that I drove the last 2 years had a set of Penske 3 ways that were horribly shot out - I'm talking black goo for oil, busted bits, just plain junk. These were the dampers that were on the car when the still standing Road Atlanta FB lap record of 1:21.4 was set.
I had them gone through completely, and reinstalled to run the ARRC race last year and I couldn't tell but maybe a slight difference, and didn't go any quicker.
Now I'm sure that they were better and would provide an increase in performance if given enough testing, but how much is the question.

BTW, those engines are more like 2-3k, not 12 hun'...



I personaly think $6k shift system is bad for class growth.The appeal of cheap engine/transmissions is not there when it appears to those looking at this class that they will have to have a shifter that cost more than a FF engine.

I have heard from reliable sources that folks have paid up to 16k for a Kent. I know, I almost puked too...

I also agree with Jay it is a driver aid and I feel racing is about driving skill which includes shifting.I know one DSR Yamaha engine lasted several years,won three national championships with a manual shifter and was never blown up or had the transmission damaged.

NOT taking anything from Jaremko (THAT would be pretty stupid!), but comparing the first years of Stohr in DSR to what is happening today is not really close to reality.
The lap times have dropped MASSIVELY, from 2:15-ish to 2:03's.
Not to mention the amount of competition then vs now.

This must be the famed Loynings '93 R1 engine that was never rebuilt, or even opened up for inspection, right? (Where's the "poking w/ stick" emoticon when you need it?)


It doesn't appear that Coello has any trouble without it.The FA's don't appear to have trouble with manual shifting and appeared in the video to be faster and brake later than the FB's.The shifter will mainly allow someone be competitive with less shifting skill.

I'm pretty sure that most of the FA's do not have sequential transmissions, and can merely concentrate on braking and then go straight to the exact gear they want.
Anyone here know who has what trans in FA?

Coello is actually having a similar problem to what I was experiencing as well as Barfield, the DSR driver that won The Sprints. The downshifting issue I have spoken about in the first post is not an isolated incident that only I am experiencing.
I'm starting to think it's something that only sequential boxes without dog rings experience...

[glenn cooper]

Can someone help educate me here...
What is the whole auto blipper business about anyway?

Is there not some good reason to just use your right foot to blip away?
Is there such a thing as bliping too high in rpm, and the auto blippahs take care of that automatically?

[Rick Ross]

The Swift 008, 014, and 016 cars all have a 5 speed sequential box. The Ralt RT-40/41's and Swift DB4's have an H-pattern box.

The Atlantic cars weigh approximately 300 pounds more than an FB. If the Atlantics were in fact braking later than the FB's, it was due to downforce, big rotors (with the 15" wheels), and big tires.

[glenn cooper]

I did not know that the FA's were sequential from that far back, like '96 or so?

PLUS they are dog ring boxes, correct? Not just dogs like a m/c engine?

[Wren]

My hat's off to him for creative interpretation. While his system may not be what the rule-writers envisioned it certainly meets the letter of the rule. If the system will not work without his "stock ECU" in place it isn't a stand alone system. Currently there isn't language in the rule stating what the stock ECU must control.

The letter of the rule is that the system may only modify the inputs to the ECU, the motec is obviously modifying much more than that. I understand that the rule is badly written, but I don' think it meets the intent of the rule either.

That's a good start, and I like the theory/direction. However, what is to say that the OEM ECU controls the start circuit and everything on the motor until RPMS exceed 1500 and then it becomes only a ground for the piggybacked ECU? Essentially we have the same end result.

That sounds pretty complicated. let's worry about that when we get there. People need to remember that this is amateur's building cars, largely in their garage. It is not teams of dedicated car builders.

I personaly think $6k shift system is bad for class growth.The appeal of cheap engine/transmissions is not there when it appears to those looking at this class that they will have to have a shifter that cost more than a FF engine.

FF motors are easily double that and a good FF gearbox is still more than the shifter system.

The Swift 008, 014, and 016 cars all have a 5 speed sequential box. The Ralt RT-40/41's and Swift DB4's have an H-pattern box.

I have had two people with real pro Atlantic experience tell me that the sequential shifters in FA have the same problem as the FB cars because of the short braking distances.

[Rick Ross]

The last Atlantic with an H-pattern Staffs was the Ralt RT-41. The Pro Atlantic series went "spec" in 1998 with the Swift 008, which had the Hewland NST sequential geaerbox. Every Atlantic since has had a sequential box.

I assume that these are dog ring boxes, but I am not sure.....I have never taken one apart.

[Rick Ross]

I have had two people with real pro Atlantic experience tell me that the sequential shifters in FA have the same problem as the FB cars because of the short braking distances.

That does not surprise me at all. I actually prefer an H-pattern shifter. In my DB4 I always made one downshift directly into the desired gear.

[Thomas Copeland]

Mike, I think got things pretty much dead on.

I know what Sal at Philadelphia told me. He told me okay. Okay on open ECU's. Okay with engine freeze. Mark Belling was there and heard it too.

I know how we at Firman West are. It's cool with us. Both open ECU and engine freeze. We see no advantages/disadvantages and are willing to do whatever it takes to help the class out.

I talked to 2 people at Citation. One was okay with the open ECU and Brandon was okay with it as well with those caveats with Philadelphia I talked about. So I guess Wren speaks for Wren and not everyone at Citation. I didn't speak with Wren.

Dustin said a lot on the phone and not at of it seemed to be on topic (engines). I thought I heard open ECU's are good but the connection was really bad. So I mis-heard. Right now I'm not sure what Dustin's position is except that he seems to be aganist everything.

I talked to Wayne at Stohr yesterday. I thought I pretty much much knew their position. He confirmed it to me. Okay with Open ECU's, Okay with engine freeze.

I talked to Gary at Edge last night. He seemed okay with the engine freeze but less so about the open ECU. I need to talk to him some more.

I got email from George Dean which says things so I know I'm right about most things there and also I know Nicholas was right there when George said thngs at Road America so I know I'm not the only only one that heard those things.

So except for Dustin everything else was spot on. I don't need notes my hearing works just fine.

If there are no advantages to open ECU's then I don't understand why anyone would be aganist them.

If most are against open engine rules then I fail to understand why they would be aganist the engine freeze. All we are doing is freezing what we got for the next 3 years to get some stablility.

Of course we at Firman West have our dry sump for the 09 Suzuki that will work just fine with the next gen Suzuki's which will no doubt be as good or even better than the BMW. We can go either way. But having a 200+hp Suzuki in the back of our car sounds wonderful to us.

I guess some people that are on the fence need to decide. Or not decide. We can go either way. Make changes or let time stand still. Like I said, I only mentioning all this because it's what I heard. I didn't make the suggestions, I'm only conveying them.

The only reason we are talking as manufacturer's first is because it is a starting point. We tried to get more of the FB competitior's to come to the meeting. And we planned to get a general idea of their views before preceding with any proposal.



I really having a hard time grasping at what you are doing. There is no reason for any beat downs or open hostility towards anyone.

Let's have a friendly discussion. If enough people would like to see a rules change then we'll see about doing it. If they don't, we won't.

It's just that simple. No reason to make this more than it is.

[Mike B]

I really having a hard time grasping at what you are doing.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

Let's have a friendly discussion. If enough people would like to see a rules change then we'll see about doing it. If they don't, we won't.

This is my friendly face. If it wasn't, you'd know...

So, based on your last post, the two rule changes you propose are:
1) open ECU
2) engine freeze for a period of time (3 years?)

If that is it, please confirm so we can move the discussion forward without any other topics clouding people's opinions. Simple enough?


It was a long time ago so maybe you missed it, but I highly recommend you reread (or read for the first time) Tom Owens' post. I highlighted the part everyone should consider:

My recommendation is to stick with what has worked for you up until now. Leave the engineering open to evolution; in fact, encourage that part of the equation. This is the part of the class that encourages ingenuity and lateral thinking and innovation!! This part of the rules will keep every car from looking like the next one....something I agree you can see in DSR! Guys like Lathrop and Novak, and Dustin at Phoenix and Ralph Firman, and others like Jeremy Hill (built everything himself) are what make this class so cool! Not all the cars look alike!

[Dick R.]

How much aero drag does a FB have "at speed"? Do they momentarily slow during upshifts? (actually slow, not just stop accelerating?)

Reason for asking is that the Geartronics info emphasizes that the potentially slightly quicker shift won't add significant acceleration time and with FB power levels that won't save any real amount of lap time per shift. There is no mention (that I remember) of slowing from drag during shifts.

However, I recall from years ago some info about how much an F1 car slows from aero drag during shifts and minimizing the shift time was a big deal. The drag was "multiple g's" as I recall.

Dick

[JohnPaul]

I'm with Mike B: leave well enough alone. And didn't most of these issues already get protested and found to be ok? No one got found doing anything outside the rules at the runoffs so the system works.

[bill gillespie]

Wow, you guys have kept me reading for the last two hours!

I must say I am IMPRESSED that the tone of the earlier posts has now moderated into a much more respectful mode...you guys are doing a good job!

I see the thread has also now moved onto other subjects that just the shifter system. As a DSR guy but also one whose heart is in FB (I built the car that Jeremy qualified at MidOhio that SCCA tried to ban)...so I kinda am one of the earliest FB guys!

From an outsider, I am very impressed with the quality of the cars, the level of committment from both manufacturers and drivers.....and I see that FB has a bright future....the cars are pretty, quick, show a high level of engineering and preparation and are darned fine to watch on the track.

From the DSR side, I share the voiced concerns of the cost escalation potential of open motors. You have all heard and know that the cost of being at the front in DSR is getting up there; I know of one competitor who had wind tunnel time to prepare for the runoffs. These guys also budget for three or four sets of tires each weekend. The engines can be had (reasonably competitive) for around $6 to $7G's and are now pretty reliable...as long as you do not over-rev. You should have at least three engines to be at the front. And the TOP engines are probably running close to $10Gs per unit. Too expensive for my poor budget.

My recommendation is to stick with what has worked for you up until now. Leave the engineering open to evolution; in fact, encourage that part of the equation. This is the part of the class that encourages ingenuity and lateral thinking and innovation!! This part of the rules will keep every car from looking like the next one....something I agree you can see in DSR! Guys like Lathrop and Novak, and Dustin at Phoenix and Ralph Firman, and others like Jeremy Hill (built everything himself) are what make this class so cool! Not all the cars look alike!

You do NOT need 200 HP to be quick and competitive; Keeping to stock engines will allow everyone access to decent performance (quite brilliant, actually) from ebay and other sources. This not only keeps costs down, but also allows everyone to draw water from the same well, so to speak. The moment you move the cost of engines from something akin to capital cost and move it to an expense item, where a fresh engine will be needed every couple of races, I suggest you will lose a lot of your base of competitors and will restrict the number of potential new competitors; they will just not be able to afford the ticket to play.

I agree that, with some development of the chassis and aero in FB, these cars have at least three or more seconds in them as they sit...just wait until next year; the pole will be two seconds quicker than this year!

If somebody wants a car with FA power, let go and buy a FA. The ATTRACTION of FB is that the cars perform so well with just what they have! And they sound better!

Finally, as one who is quite well versed in shifter technology, having worked with and installed a number of the "competitor's) systems, I would like to offer an observation; The shifter does not really make the car more competitive; If someone tells you it will save a second a lap is full of themselves and horse$%^&! What it DOES do, is:

1: saves engines from overrevs on downshifts (close to 80% of overrevs are on the downshift)

2, The smooth downshifts are MUCH easier on the gearbox and the engine..they are so smooth with the blipper that you cannot feel them...at all!

3. This smoothness of downshifts allows us a greater ability to manage threshold braking...one, because the downshifts will no longer unsettle rear traction as the blip is exact and adjustable and repeatable, allowing the driver to anticipate and accomodate the specific handling characteristics he has established with the blipper pre-set.

4. For newbies (or old guys like me) the downshifts will be taken care of, allowing me 100% concentration on just my braking force and the apex....a lot of the variable of corner entry will now be removed from the equation. Someone said it earlier; the "enhanced" downshift will allow me to be closer to you quick guys....the field would be closer and more competitive throughout the field.

I am sorry to butt in, but Mario had made me aware of this thread and I just HAD to pipe in!


I am not going to argue the merits of the various choices you have before you; rather I just wanted to point out what a GREAT JOB you all have done to date! And from where I sit, if you just stick to the basic tenets you set out in the beginning and not vary too much from it, you will continue to experience the growth and success you have had to date.

FB ROCKS!!

Tom Owen

Tom,
Excellent, well thought-out post.
Regards,
Bill

[JEREMY HILL]

i was at the meeting and what i heard was that we should all write to the crb suggesting a freeze on engines at 2010 model year for a three year period, there was not an agreeement on ecu's as a matter of fact there was heated debate, i believe the rule should remain as is on ecus (no aftermarket) i also believe that any electronic shift system has no place in the class and will be asking for a rule change to specifiy manual driver operated shift systems only, jeremy hill fb#00

[JohnPaul]

i was at the meeting and what i heard was that we should all write to the crb suggesting a freeze on engines at 2010 model year for a three year period, there was not an agreeement on ecu's as a matter of fact there was heated debate, i believe the rule should remain as is on ecus (no aftermarket) i also believe that any electronic shift system has no place in the class and will be asking for a rule change to specifiy manual driver operated shift systems only, jeremy hill fb#00

only my opinion:
1) engine freeze= BS
2) Aftermarket ECU= not for it, but the Stock ECU thing almost doesn't make sense since everyone re-flashes them anyway
3) Shifter= I've invested time and money in one, I suggest anybody that has put the time and money into this legal system needs to also write to the CRB in favor of keeping the rules as they are. Again, There isn't a performance advantage and if you can't win without one you probably can't with it, so it shouldn't matter. It's just a matter of personal preference and you shouldn't ask for rules changes based on personal preference. It's like me saying I don't think conversions should be allowed because they aren't purpose built or something ridiculous like that.