FB Request for Input - Shifters

[starkejt]

I think it just meant that he would rather be racing an FC. He is going FC racing next year in a Piper as I understand it.

I have been pressuring Brandon for years to go zetec racing instead of FB. I feel like there is more progress there since the mess at the runoffs and the bull**** surrounding the shifter than in the last 4 years.

I just started a bellhousing for the new car I am building. I am also building a bellhousing for Brandon and Tom, whether they like it or not.

Schwietz has always said that while he really likes the idea of FB and loves driving the cars, that he isn't confident the class will survive, but it's not the end of the world because Citations are readily converted to FC or FF, whether it be pinto, zetec, kent or fit. Also, he admittedly enjoys the construction of the car as much as racing it, thus would be glad to convert. That's pretty much what that comment means. But if we convert the Citation to zetec, that means we have to convert the Piper to Fit. It never ends.

Josh,

That is what I like about Tom. He is the pure racer that I wish I could be. I respect him and everyone who supports his efforts. You guys bust hump, and it shows.

Trust me, you don't want to be like him. But you are right, for better or worse, he lives to race. Just saying the word "race" around him is like saying "treat" in front of my dog.

[John LaRue]

Hell after I saw him in that new Radon hat at Runoffs I figured he was done with the Citations and Pipers. Perhaps that had something to do with a home inspection business?

[RussMcB]

Brussels, How many times I gotta tell ya - no synchros, no clutchy.
Heel and toe is for street cars, real drivers use their left foot on the whoa pedal!

Clutch? Heel and toe is for blipping the throttle while braking. *

Oh, I forgot. You probably have a computer do that for you. :-).

(* on edit - I forgot about left foot braking. I couldn't do that in my last two cars. I definitely prefer that when possible).

When you say "package" are you talking about engines?
2007 - Engine to have, and is doing all the winning - 2007/2008 Suzuki
2008 - Ditto
2009 - Ditto
2010 - Ditto

Of course if you were not referencing engines, I'll just go back to preppin' the gibletts!

Yes, I was mainly talking about engines. I think an ideal situation would be if all engines made, say, 190 HP.

Let's say JR had a more reliable BMW at the Runoffs and he (hypothetically) displayed the extra HP the BMW was rumored to have and he was a second per lap faster. Things would be looking a little different now, wouldn't they?

I've heard, (all internet rumors, quite possibly untrue) that Kawasaki is coming out with an engine to match BMW's. If so, those Suzukis might not be looking so good for you guys hoping for national wins and championships. If there are two faster engines this time next year, what will you do?

[Wren]

Let's say JR had a more reliable BMW at the Runoffs and he (hypothetically) displayed the extra HP the BMW was rumored to have and he was a second per lap faster. Things would be looking a little different now, wouldn't they?

that's only third on the grid behind a worn out 07 gsxr and an unprepped 07 gsxr.

The engine will also have to last a full session, which it is having trouble doing in a bike, much less a car.

[starkejt]

Hell after I saw him in that new Radon hat at Runoffs I figured he was done with the Citations and Pipers. Perhaps that had something to do with a home inspection business?

In Tom's case, the Radon moniker is appropriate because of his tendency to show up in your basement, requiring you to pay to get rid of him.

[Jnovak]

This is a very tough situation, for all current competitors, potential future competitors & car builders in F1000.

I also think that a clarification of the rule is in order. Here is the actual text of the rule from the 2010 GCR:

D. All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Mechanical gear shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and similar devices are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited.

I think that it is very clear that assisted shifting is allowed, however the rule very clearly is about shifters only & it also clearly states that any assited system must be "direct acting"

Obviously my interpretation of direct acting is not the same as others. My thoughts and statements are my opinions only & carry no more or less validity than anyone elses opinion. So here goes:

Direct Acting, what does this mean? TO ME it means that you may have a solonoid or an air cylinder or other similar device to activate the SHIFT LEVER. This device should be activated by a micro switch or a valve that directly actuates the solonoid or cylinder. For example, you initiate a shift with a micro switch attached to your paddle shifter or shift lever, the micro switch passes a voltage DIRECTLY to the solonoid & the solonoid operates the SHIFT LEVER on the trans. To me this is the definition of direct acting. Sending the voltage to a microprocessor for any purpose at all means that the system is NOT DIRECT ACTING. Agree with me or not, it is my opinion that that is what the "intent" of the rules was & it is also what the rule states IMHO.

On another note. Read the above rule VERY CAREFULLY, nowhere does it talk about throttle blipping assistance ANYWHERE in section D or anywhere else in the FB rules.

Here is what the GCR does say in very clear language:
"Formula 1000 is a restricted class. Therefore, all allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T. Homologation is required for all cars."

The rules DO NOT discuss throttle blipping or the addition of electronic solonoids, air cylinders or other similar devices to assist with throttle blipping. "Therefore, all allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions." To me servo assisted throttle blipping is clearly not addressed in the rules & is therefore not legal.

So now that I am past all my OPINIONS, let's get the rule clarified or rewritten or whatever so that there cannot be differing opinions as to what the rules mean. Either way this particular rule will have a significant impact on the future of FB and all of us need to be cognizant of that fact.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Wren]

I think that it is very clear that assisted shifting is allowed, however the rule very clearly is about shifters only & it also clearly states that any assited system must be "direct acting"

Obviously my interpretation of direct acting is not the same as others. My thoughts and statements are my opinions only & carry no more or less validity than anyone elses opinion. So here goes:

Direct Acting, what does this mean? TO ME it means that you may have a solonoid or an air cylinder or other similar device to activate the SHIFT LEVER. This device should be activated by a micro switch or a valve that directly actuates the solonoid or cylinder. For example, you initiate a shift with a micro switch attached to your paddle shifter or shift lever, the micro switch passes a voltage DIRECTLY to the solonoid & the solonoid operates the SHIFT LEVER on the trans. To me this is the definition of direct acting. Sending the voltage to a microprocessor for any purpose at all means that the system is NOT DIRECT ACTING. Agree with me or not, it is my opinion that that is what the "intent" of the rules was & it is also what the rule states IMHO.

To believe that you would have to also believe that is what is meant when the phrase "direct acting" is used to describe FV shocks. Somehow I don't think they were outlawing microprocessors for the shocks in the FV rules.


Direct acting is used in a couple of other places in the GCR talking about non-shifter things. In those places, it always references a physical connection between things.

Also remember that the CRB designated someone to investigate the shifters at the runoffs and had no problems with them then.

On another note. Read the above rule VERY CAREFULLY, nowhere does it talk about throttle blipping assistance ANYWHERE in section D or anywhere else in the FB rules.

Here is what the GCR does say in very clear language:
"Formula 1000 is a restricted class. Therefore, all allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T. Homologation is required for all cars."

The rules DO NOT discuss throttle blipping or the addition of electronic solonoids, air cylinders or other similar devices to assist with throttle blipping. "Therefore, all allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions." To me servo assisted throttle blipping is clearly not addressed in the rules & is therefore not legal.

So now that I am past all my OPINIONS, let's get the rule clarified or rewritten or whatever so that there cannot be differing opinions as to what the rules mean. Either way this particular rule will have a significant impact on the future of FB and all of us need to be cognizant of that fact.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

The throttle blippers are part of the throttle bodies and the induction system is free.

Maybe you can find me the section that allows you to use a hand actuated throttle? I can only find the section of the GCR that specifically disallows it(9.3.7).

[JohnPaul]

Direct acting simply means the gears must be engaged by direct action of the driver, ie: pulling a shift lever or pulling on a paddle.

Throttle blipping: So as per your interpretion: It's says nothing about throttling blipping and therefore not legal and that means both "Mechanical/cable assisted" and "Servo assisted" right?

[Purple Frog]

I have been trying to form an opinion about these shifters since the Runoffs. I've tried to read everything posted with an open mind. Having sat in on many of the phone calls when the originators of the FB class were penning the origial proposal years ago, I have to say the class has morfed into a whole different animal than the founders intended. That was pretty much expected, i believe. The horse got out of the corral. And most of the original class founders have moved on.

What we have now is a class that is at the far opposite end of the spectrum when compared to a "spec" class such as FE. One is not going to buy a FB off the shelf, throw a set-up at it and run anywhere near the front. To be competitive in FB, requires an investment of a lot of engineering time. FB cars tend to be exploring the bleeding edge of technology, and that is fine with those that have stayed in the class. I believe those attracted to the class are attracted to the 'engineering' requirement, not put off by it.

If "heavy engineering" is going to define the personality of the class, then I'm starting to lean towards the opinion of letting the shifters stay in place. In fact, I am now starting to lean towards letting them engineer totally computerized automatic shifters if they please. In other words, wide open shifting rules. Let them engineer away. In the spirit of the class.

I read recently that one can drive faster laps in a 458 Italia letting it shift as an automatic, than trying to manually shift it. It's almost 2011, maybe it won't hurt SCCA to have one class that is using available street car technology in race cars. Maybe that is what will be needed to bring in the next generation of participants, a generation that never knew of a world without iPods, etc. Why do those of us with decades of experience have to fight so hard to keep the status quo? Especially in a class we have no intention of participating in.

Besides, as a national scutineer, if there are no shifter rules, there is no problem teching shifters. Problem solved.

[LLoshak]

[FONT=Verdana]I truly do not believe any system could be measurably better than the other, when installed properly and working properly. Your limiting factor is still the transmission.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Ive heard many horror stories regarding the flatshifter, not enough blip, cant downshift... I LOVE MINE. I have no problem going from 6 to 1st for corner 5 at RA. Never had a problem downshifting.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]There is no way to police this with the current equipment and knowledge in typical national tech shed.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]I strongly plead to leave it alone.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]It is not the reason anyone won the runoffs. It takes a lot more than a geartronix to win the runoffs. Perfect engine build, perfect suspension set-up, just enough wing, the right gearing, prep, crew, enough rest, concentration, being smooth, consistent.... I could keep going. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Its the total package all coming together.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Again, I Love my flatshifter. I didn’t even think about swapping it out to a geartronix. There plenty of other stuff to spend money on! [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]As for the class taking off, be proud, its an awesome class IMHO. Sound sweet, look sweet, & go really fast.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Running any car, upfront, at the runoffs, is going to be expensive. And there will always be someone with a bigger budget and/or more time on thier hands. Let the class evolve, let the engineers and tinker-ers have thier fun too. We need companies support to make products and help the class, don’t push em away.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]If I were in FB, I'd be more worried about motors. Stock only is going to be expensive when you have to convert to another make and then maybe the following year again, ouch! It’s what happened to IMSA Lites and it hurt the series big time. The BMW is coming. It’s not unreliable. It’s just like the Iphone sucks right? There’s your die hard blackberry owners who spread the hate. BMW unreliable? Come on. The only problem is 1. getting one and 2. making it work in the car with its complex computers and wiring harness.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Anyway, I vote to let the shifters in, all types. And add a rule that clearly states you can.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT]

[Tom Valet]

Tom, you're right that some people would be discouraged from joining the class because of the shifters. But I have heard as many non FB people express interest in the class because of the shifters as I have heard them say they are discouraged by the shifters (I know that is completely unscientific, just a comment). To those who are worried that someone MIGHT not get involved in FB because of the shifters, does that outweigh the fact that some current competitors will definitely leave the class if the shifters are banned after they are allowed to compete for 2 years? I'm sure not all will leave, but some will. And does that make it fair to change the rules and outlaw the shifters at this stage of the game?

Josh, that's all cool and if everyone thinks that this type of technology is what will drive up participation in the class, then it's all well and good. But for me, as someone who had a great deal of excitement about this class when it was first announced, along with my son and his fiends who are all engineers, the class has become almost unrecognizeable from the time it was first conceived.

Maybe I am wrong, but the concept of the class as it first appeared to me was a fast, low cost alternative to FC, cars would be converted FCs using cheap bike motors that would last a long time. That is no longer the philosophy of the class, and if we are being honest, while the class has slowly grown, it is not taken off as everyone hoped. 5 years after its introduction, I have still not seen more than a handful of FBs at a race here in the NE.

So if those who have spent the money to be competitive in FB want to protect their investment at the expense of growing the class, so be it, but you should know that there are people on the outside looking in who dont like what they see.

[nulrich]

If "heavy engineering" is going to define the personality of the class, then I'm starting to lean towards the opinion of letting the shifters stay in place. In fact, I am now starting to lean towards letting them engineer totally computerized automatic shifters if they please. In other words, wide open shifting rules. Let them engineer away. In the spirit of the class.

I read recently that one can drive faster laps in a 458 Italia letting it shift as an automatic, than trying to manually shift it. It's almost 2011, maybe it won't hurt SCCA to have one class that is using available street car technology in race cars. Maybe that is what will be needed to bring in the next generation of participants, a generation that never knew of a world without iPods, etc. Why do those of us with decades of experience have to fight so hard to keep the status quo? Especially in a class we have no intention of participating in.

I'm with you. As someone said earlier, I think it's too late to try to change the direction of the class back to the original vision of a low-cost formula class, and would be unfair to those that have already invested in developing shifting technology (as well as other technologies). Might as well let FB be a real "formula" class (and maybe F600 could take over the original low-cost vision?).

Are you going to prohibit Dynamic DSSV dampers? Or some of the new Sachs dampers? You can spend substantially more on dampers than these shifting systems, and, used properly, they will result in more lap time improvement.

In that vein, why try to limit engine technology? I think you should allow the same engineering creativity in that area of the car as elsewhere, and as long as you require the stock internals you'll keep cost somewhat under control.

Honestly, the most advanced microprocessor-assisted shifting systems aren't going to provide a huge lap time improvement. Even fully automatic shifting, which has been proven faster than the best human drivers for at least a decade, isn't going to drop lap times a whole lot. Wait until someone does a proper aero design effort within the FB rules! That will be worth multiple seconds a lap at a place like Road America.

Of course, as long as they keep the prohibition against composites in structural applications in the FB rules, we'll be watching (with interest) from the sidelines, not participants, so I guess my opinion isn't worth much .

Nathan

[RobLav]

I sent my input to leave the rules as currently stated.

[bill gillespie]

I'm with you. As someone said earlier, I think it's too late to try to change the direction of the class back to the original vision of a low-cost formula class, and would be unfair to those that have already invested in developing shifting technology (as well as other technologies). Might as well let FB be a real "formula" class (and maybe F600 could take over the original low-cost vision?).

Are you going to prohibit Dynamic DSSV dampers? Or some of the new Sachs dampers? You can spend substantially more on dampers than these shifting systems, and, used properly, they will result in more lap time improvement.

In that vein, why try to limit engine technology? I think you should allow the same engineering creativity in that area of the car as elsewhere, and as long as you require the stock internals you'll keep cost somewhat under control.

Honestly, the most advanced microprocessor-assisted shifting systems aren't going to provide a huge lap time improvement. Even fully automatic shifting, which has been proven faster than the best human drivers for at least a decade, isn't going to drop lap times a whole lot. Wait until someone does a proper aero design effort within the FB rules! That will be worth multiple seconds a lap at a place like Road America.

Of course, as long as they keep the prohibition against composites in structural applications in the FB rules, we'll be watching (with interest) from the sidelines, not participants, so I guess my opinion isn't worth much .

Nathan

Nathan,
Re: your last paragraph......is your concern based on safety of tube frame vs composite tub at FB speeds ?.......how about a bored/ stroked 'busa motor at 1600cc in a current FA carbon tub.........would the gearbox be considered transverse, and therefore illegal for FA ??

Regards,
Bill

[glenn cooper]

This is a very tough situation, for all current competitors, potential future competitors & car builders in F1000.

I also think that a clarification of the rule is in order. Here is the actual text of the rule from the 2010 GCR:

D. All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Mechanical gear shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and similar devices are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear changes are prohibited.


Thanks ... Jay Novak

Josh, that's all cool and if everyone thinks that this type of technology is what will drive up participation in the class, then it's all well and good. But for me, as someone who had a great deal of excitement about this class when it was first announced, along with my son and his fiends who are all engineers, the class has become almost unrecognizeable from the time it was first conceived.

Maybe I am wrong, but the concept of the class as it first appeared to me was a fast, low cost alternative to FC, cars would be converted FCs using cheap bike motors that would last a long time. That is no longer the philosophy of the class, and if we are being honest, while the class has slowly grown, it is not taken off as everyone hoped. 5 years after its introduction, I have still not seen more than a handful of FBs at a race here in the NE.

So if those who have spent the money to be competitive in FB want to protect their investment at the expense of growing the class, so be it, but you should know that there are people on the outside looking in who dont like what they see.

Couplea things:
Jay, not to be anymore of a joker than normal, but the rule clearly states "direct acting electric solenoid shifters"... with no mention of direct acting pneumatic shifters It's all in the punctuation, ie placement of commas.


Tom, While I agree that for whatever reason the FB count in the NE is slim, I have to disagree with the reference to what FB was intended to be. I do not recall a specific rule that said anything about the class only being open to converted FC's.
In fact that is essentially what the Citation, Piper, and Novak converted Van Diemen are. These cars lap Rd Am in about 2:10. This is somehow a disappointment to you and your son and his friends how?

As for the class not growing as quickly as everyone had hoped, you are somehow forgetting that in no time in automotive racing history has a class been introduced just as the economy was starting to take a massive dump.

There are very fast cars available for under 30k, complete with spares, why don't you guys jump on one of those; hell it's only the cost of 2 or 3 top Kent engines!

[starkejt]

Maybe I am wrong, but the concept of the class as it first appeared to me was a fast, low cost alternative to FC, cars would be converted FCs using cheap bike motors that would last a long time. That is no longer the philosophy of the class, and if we are being honest, while the class has slowly grown, it is not taken off as everyone hoped. 5 years after its introduction, I have still not seen more than a handful of FBs at a race here in the NE.

Tom, I would to add that we purchased 7 suzuki engines for the same amount of money that we spent on 2 name brand Kents. The blueprinted LD200 cost way more than a Geartronics. So I still think FBs are cheap for the speeds they go. No, I'm not saying FB is cheaper than FF, but one can easily spend the same amount in both cases.

Nathan's point about expensive dampers relates to what I have said before, which is that the shifters aren't even close to the most expensive thing on the car. If everyone really wants to reign costs in dramatically, let's start complaining about some of the other expensive stuff, too.

[Jnovak]

The issue in my mind is clarification. I have made my opinions known. If the rules are clarified such that the Geartronics & other assisted systems are allowed then so be it. If that happens then it would be a very necessary expense to compete at the front of FB. While this is a very interesting technical whizzy for FB I am not sure that that it will help the class grow.

While we argue on this forum about the legality of the concept the important thing is that the CRB has started a process that will eventually lead to a clearer understanding of the FB shifting rules. Make certain that you send in your letter to the CRB.

Go to WWW.crbscca.com to send your letter in.

PS: while I think that our mechanical throttle blipper is legal I am waiting for the clarification before we offer it to customers. When we build things for customers we must be totally confident that what we are selling is legal even if it only costs about $200 to add it to the car.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[JohnPaul]

PS: while I think that our mechanical throttle blipper is legal I am waiting for the clarification before we offer it to customers. When we build things for customers we must be totally confident that what we are selling is legal even if it only costs about $200 to add it to the car.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

there is nothing in the rules that say about an autoblipper legal or not legal (mechanical or otherwise) so would you say that if the CRB deems throttle blipper as legal that it would include both electronic and mechanical? Because I can't see how one can be deemed legal and the other not. That would be complete BS.

BTW: Is there anything in the rules that address use of or prohibit the use of electronics in a car?

[Wren]

Maybe I am wrong, but the concept of the class as it first appeared to me was a fast, low cost alternative to FC, cars would be converted FCs using cheap bike motors that would last a long time. That is no longer the philosophy of the class, and if we are being honest, while the class has slowly grown, it is not taken off as everyone hoped. 5 years after its introduction, I have still not seen more than a handful of FBs at a race here in the NE.

FB is the open wheel class for engineers and tinkerers right now. That is the interesting part of the class.

I think that people may have wanted FB to be some ultra low cost class, but the rules were absolutely never written that way. Knowledgeable people like Richard and Rennie predicted where the class would end up based on the rules that were being proposed and the class has ended up exactly there. FB is going to get a lot faster over the next few years as the cars are still very, very raw right now. All of the uncertainty with shifters and bodywork is certainly doing a lot to prevent the cars from speeding up right now as no one knows what direction to develop their car in.

I would say that the class has been very successful. When the class was started, there was only one car in the country. Within 4 years the class has made it's minimum participation numbers (one year early) and has generated more new chassis than every other open wheel class put together. That is why I think that the rules should be left alone.

Converted FC's are the best cars in the field right now. There is no doubt in my mind that a properly developed Citation, Piper, or Novak conversion can win the runoffs. As for cost, people might be surprised at how little Brandon spent last year on racing, some people seem to think that he is a high budget operation and he is not.

[VehDyn]

Tom, While I agree that for whatever reason the FB count in the NE is slim, I have to disagree with the reference to what FB was intended to be. I do not recall a specific rule that said anything about the class only being open to converted FC's.
In fact that is essentially what the Citation, Piper, and Novak converted Van Diemen are. These cars lap Rd Am in about 2:10. This is somehow a disappointment to you and your son and his friends how?

I agree that saying the new manufacturers have come in and made the conversions uncompetitive is not reality. The Citation and Piper are great examples. By the way, where is that Piper? I still think that car is an awesome car and would be at the front if someone dusted it off and ran it.

[glenn cooper]

and made into a Waterford Hills only (I believe) car, poss w/ a 'Busa engine iirc...

[Mike Devins]

....... If the rules are clarified such that the Geartronics & other assisted systems are allowed then so be it. If that happens then it would be a very necessary expense to compete at the front of FB.......

Thanks ... Jay Novak

Jay I am in the process of getting some good comparative data between a Geartronics setup and a FlatShifter from the runoffs. My guess is that Geartronics is no faster than the FlatShifer.

We will let the data speak for itself but if my assumption is correct the only reason to go with the Geartronics would be the ability to prevent overrevs.

I know that the Flatshifter is not cheap but it does not approach the cost of a Geartronics.

[Mike B]

Mike:

Please explain how that would be enforced. The advisory committee considered a choice like the one you have proposed, but rejected it because of the inability to enforce it.

Dave

Once again, this is the Runoffs tail wagging the club racing dog. One irrelevant race that a small fraction of a class attends determines the policy for the majority.
If inability to enforce a rule is the head-in-the-sand reason for not writing an effective rule that most folks can accept, then I guess the next change will be opening the engine rule, not just for F1000 but all classes. The fact is, at 98.5% of the races, the only rule that is typically enforced is minimum weight and one other easy to measure item. Some of the tech inspectors I've seen don't know the difference between a 2.0L and a 1.6L.

I challenge you (the CRB) to ignore the Runoffs (gasp!) and write a rule that the average club racer can accept and that embodies the original philosophy of the class.

FB is the open wheel class for engineers and tinkerers right now. That is the interesting part of the class.

Wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, in the context of this discussion, the only tinkerers and engineers are Firman West. Tinkering involves plunking down a big wad of cash and watching Belling install & configure the system.

The compromise that I proposed would allow a tinkerer to design a "dumb" solenoid or pneumatic shifter without the complication (and cost) of closed-loop algorithms. You get to keep your hardware and preserve part of your investment, and I get to rig up my own system that comes close to the performance of your system (maybe).

[glenn cooper]

If you are not willing to bestow "Tinkerer's" status to Brandon and Wren, then I, um, then, well that just ain't right!

The Citation is the embodiment of tinkering!

In regard to a dumb pneumatic system, I was under the impression that it already existed, and quite honestly sucks out loud, or at least that's what folks with Pingle system experience say... Great for going 1/4 mile at a time, though.

[Mike B]

If you are not willing to bestow "Tinkerer's" status to Brandon and Wren, then I, um, then, well that just ain't right!

That's why I said "in the context of this discussion", i.e. Geartronics. Not to take anything away from Brandon & Wren (well, Wren, since we all know he does all the work), but that system has nothing to do with tinkering. The minute that I can buy the components, put the full-featured software on my laptop, and install/configure it myself, I'll rescind.

[Wren]

That's why I said "in the context of this discussion", i.e. Geartronics. Not to take anything away from Brandon & Wren (well, Wren, since we all know he does all the work), but that system has nothing to do with tinkering. The minute that I can buy the components, put the full-featured software on my laptop, and install/configure it myself, I'll rescind.

Brandon had over 100 hours in getting the system to fit on his car. Multiple parts had to be CNC'd and he had to split the car and redesign the back half of the car to make all of the components fit. It was anything but plug and play. It was a lot of work and a lot of tinkering.

[Daryl DeArman]

I happen to be of the mindset that changing rules to make something that is legal today, illegal tomorrow isn't the best example of sportsmanship.

However, I have a dificult time feeling sorry for anybody who invests a fairly large chunk of change in the grey when it doesn't work out. Build something perceived as a better widget, and you'll either have a bunch of folks beating down your door to get the same thing OR the class will decide to change the rules so your widget is no longer allowed.

It's a chance we take when doing our job. That is developing the package, to the extent required to win while not breaking any rules. Rules that aren't clear can be clarified to mean something different than what you or I thought they meant. Only we can decide how much we are willing to risk. What are the likely gains? The costs? How easy to change things back?

Some saw the huge potential in the aero rules a long time ago. Some also didn't believe that MC engines would be as fast as the Pinto due to the lower torque. I am not educated enough to see the huge potential in the aero rules, but I certainly saw and still see a huge potential issue with the motor rules. Perhaps, others don't foresee a problem now.

IMO some of the same folks that are upset with the possibility of having to remove their shifter systems are going to be the same ones crying foul when the 201X ZXZR-10 motor is making their 200X GSXR grid fodder. They'll want the engine rules addressed after the fact, yet won't see the hypocrisy of their ways. The engine rules aren't an issue now, but the shifter rules weren't an issue in 2009 either.

[glenn cooper]

Brandon had over 100 hours in getting the system to fit on his car. Multiple parts had to be CNC'd and he had to split the car and redesign the back half of the car to make all of the components fit. It was anything but plug and play. It was a lot of work and a lot of tinkering.

Funny - I just tucked that stuff inside the left sidepod where I normally stuff folks wanting to come up from south of Texas. Plenty of room in there...

[blackbmwk1200r]

Is the Geartronics system being discussed the one whose closed loop operation is described at this link? http://www.geartronics.co.uk/closedloop.htm

[JohnPaul]

IMO some of the same folks that are upset with the possibility of having to remove their shifter systems are going to be the same ones crying foul when the 201X ZXZR-10 motor is making their 200X GSXR grid fodder. They'll want the engine rules addressed after the fact, yet won't see the hypocrisy of their ways. The engine rules aren't an issue now, but the shifter rules weren't an issue in 2009 either.

IMO and I can be wrong but after this next wave of 200hp engines hit the market in the next couple of years the liter bike engines will be max'd in HP and the FB class will settle into a very close HP range and HP not be an issue again. I think that the aero package will make the big difference in the long run. As far as shifter systems, they don't make any difference in who will be winning races. The only advantage to them are help with engine relability and better driver control. All the doom and gloom scenerios are coming from the guys that are selling the inferior products and want to eliminate the competition.

Here is something interesting taken from the link above:


While on the subject of shift times, we have read claims on one of our competitors websites (and rather amusingly, blatantly copied on another) of performance gains of 1/5 of a second per gear shift. Compared with what, exactly? 1/5 of a second is 200ms, which is actually longer than a decent driver will take to change gear using a stick! So where does the saving come from? Of course there are no such like for like savings. It's the same sort of nonsense argument that claims if you exit a corner 10kph faster, you will be 10kph faster all along the next straight. Utter rubbish. Even if the shift time was reduced from 200ms to zero, there would not be a corresponding track time saving of 200ms because the vehicle still has forward velocity during the shift. The only saving comes from the extra time that the vehicle would be accelerating, which isn't going to add up to much over a period of 200ms unless you have a hyper-performance car! That's not to say that there aren't worthwhile savings to be made over a race distance, but we don't sell our system on that basis. We tell you the truth, even if sometimes it's not necessarily what you want to hear, or have been led to believe by others.

If the above statement is true, there is absolutely no performance advantage to using this system. I would have to think it is truth since it is coming from the manufactorer's website and would be better if they could claim a performance advantage. what say you?

[Ivinsea]

I have no problem with the closed-loop shifters.

Rather than focussing on the interpretation of the rules or the intent of the founders of the class, I think one needs to look at the bigger picture.

I bought my 2008 Stohr late last summer; Stohr asked if I wanted the updated wings, and I said no as this was my first car. Since then, there is an entirely new body design and a 3rd generation set of wings, not to mention the BMW engine in the works, the 6" and 8" wheels, the revised wet-sump pan, a new header, and God knows what else.

As others have mentioned, there are $15K dampers, $2K lithium batteries, and $5K dry sumps.

Some guys run new tires every session. Some guys do private testing. I have heard that some guys use a smaller and lighter oil cooler in cold weather.

The point is, FB is a rapidly-developing class and the (approx) $5K shifters are just another new technology.

Of course they are not a consumable so one's investment is long term, as compared to $10K open engines which will require replacement 1 or 2 x per season (we can wrange about that issue another time) so the shifters are not even a signficant expense.

Also 4 downshifts in 1 second is pretty damn cool. I can't wait to see and hear one of these systems!

Finally, general consensus is that the shifters are worth a few 10ths on 1 lap, probably more for consistency than outright speed, so they are not essential.

In closing, these shifters are not that expensive, they are in-line with other FB technological developments, they are not essential, and they are cool as hell!

[Tom Valet]

.

Tom, While I agree that for whatever reason the FB count in the NE is slim, I have to disagree with the reference to what FB was intended to be. I do not recall a specific rule that said anything about the class only being open to converted FC's.
In fact that is essentially what the Citation, Piper, and Novak converted Van Diemen are. These cars lap Rd Am in about 2:10. This is somehow a disappointment to you and your son and his friends how?

Hey Glenn.

I didnt make myself clear. In terms of performance, the class has gone beyond what was imagined. However, our initial interest in the class was driven by the idea that individuals, on their own, could design, convert and develop their own car at a reasonably modest cost. That was quickly supplanted by manufacturer's offering purpose built cars at far greater cost, similar to what has happened in DSR where you will never again see a home built car at the front.

Again, I am not saying that this is automatically a bad thing. But if there are only a handful of people willing to invest the amount of money that is currently required to compete at the front of FB, then the class will never grow. Only time will tell whether this cost-is-no-object technology driven philosophy will prove to be the correct direction for the class.

[Wren]

However, our initial interest in the class was driven by the idea that individuals, on their own, could design, convert and develop their own car at a reasonably modest cost. That was quickly supplanted by manufacturer's offering purpose built cars at far greater cost, similar to what has happened in DSR where you will never again see a home built car at the front.

You can still do that. No question about it. See the front row of the runoffs for proof.

[DonArm]

I love all of this interaction, it's great for the class! And makes it interesting, just look at all of the people from other classes posting in the FB forum, because theirs is a lot more boring.
All of this discussion and I haven't even brought up my issue with ECU's.

[Mike B]

As others have mentioned, there are $15K dampers, $2K lithium batteries, and $5K dry sumps.

Some guys run new tires every session. Some guys do private testing. I have heard that some guys use a smaller and lighter oil cooler in cold weather.

The point is, FB is a rapidly-developing class and the (approx) $5K shifters are just another new technology.

With the exception of the shifters, everything else you listed is legal in most other classes. In other words, you can spend the same amount of money on all classes. It's when you move to F1000 that you get to spend $5k on a shifter.

[Thomas Copeland]

A brand new Firman FB car complete with Geartronics shifter is running approximately
$10,000 cheaper than a brand new FC Zetec car. Yet I don't hear anyone talking about the demise of FC due to their new car costs.

Also the Citation guys proved that you don't need a fat wallet, deep pockets, or for that matter a purpose built FB car to win in FB.

Guess I really don't understand the money issue thing. Seems a non-starter all around.

[Alex Pate]

In raving you can always spend another dollar and find another second or tenth or hundreth... Or you can have brain power and time like Dixon and Wren which has a value of it's own. Besides where else do you get to feel like your shifting an f1 car with out a $15 million sponsor deal.

[Wren]

A brand new Firman FB car complete with Geartronics shifter is running approximately
$10,000 cheaper than a brand new FC Zetec car. Yet I don't hear anyone talking about the demise of FC due to their new car costs.

I also believe that I could build a FB for less than a FF, even with the shifter.

[Daryl DeArman]

IMO and I can be wrong but after this next wave of 200hp engines hit the market in the next couple of years the liter bike engines will be max'd in HP

Only time will tell. Back in the mid 80's when the VMax and V65 Magna were going head to head there was much talk about them reaching their full potential, those were larger motors and over 80HP less.

I think that the aero package will make the big difference in the long run.

Perhaps, one may be giving up a bunch over the next guy in the aero department. It will be much easier to play "keep up" in the motor department. You certainly aren't going to see any 2007 GSXR 1000's at the 2020 RunOffs any more than you saw any 2 valve KZ1000's there this year.

[Daryl DeArman]

I also believe that I could build a FB for less than a FF, even with the shifter.

Sure. However, how many new FF's and new FC's were sold last year? There are enough existing FF's and FC's out there that remain competitive to fill the need.

The FB class needs cars being built in order to continue to grow.