FB Request for Input - Shifters

[JohnPaul]

[

quote=Quickshoe;277082]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 guess but I've been riding bike for a long time and it's almost unbelievable that they would have bikes coming out with 200hp. That's just out of control. Can you imagine how difficult it is to handle a 200hp bike around a track?? Unless there is some type of breakthrough in motorcycle handling that keeps people from busting ass, HP ain't going much higher. And bike manufactorers know that. They could have come out with a 200 hp a long time ago but it would make there bike uncontrolable. The only reason they are doing it now is to keep up with BMW. But I can bet $1000 that Honda won't play that game, they only concentrate on handling and a reliable engine.

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.

Obviously but that is why putting HP restrictions on engines is a stickly situation. what do you do in the future?

[Dennis McCarthy]

No dog in this hunt, just an observation from the outside looking in.

The prices in FB will probably continue to escalate and as they do the car count will decline. (IMHO)

The "average" SCCA driver whether it be FA,B,C or otherwise, ususally does not have the skillsets, machine equipment or mechanical aptitude of Brandon and Wren.

While Wren might be able to produce a one off car cheaper than VD or Firman, he won't be able to do that repeately unless he is a glutton for punishment.

Most people buy cars instead of building for exactly those reasons stated above and then depend on a prep shop to help them along with their racing effort. Although there are exceptions, (and few at that), if you want to run up front it costs money.
I guess time will tell....

[glenn cooper]

I'd say riding a 150 HP Superbike bike back in the day was a TON harder than these 200-210 HP bikes now.
The traction control, super advanced electronic fuel injection, dual compound tires, geometry optimised chassis, etc, etc have taken a truckload of pucker factor out of hauling it on 2 wheels these days, and has had a massive "taming" effect on the new stuff.

[RussMcB]

I guess but I've been riding bike for a long time and it's almost unbelievable that they would have bikes coming out with 200hp. That's just out of control. Can you imagine how difficult it is to handle a 200hp bike around a track?? Unless there is some type of breakthrough in motorcycle handling that keeps people from busting ass, HP ain't going much higher. And bike manufactorers know that. They could have come out with a 200 hp a long time ago but it would make there bike uncontrolable. The only reason they are doing it now is to keep up with BMW. <snip>

Don't forget that drag racers, street racers and dyno gangs don't care about how hard it is to control a bike on a race track, and they probably affect sales a lot more than road racers. If Brand A has 5-10 more HP than Brand B, Brand A has a HUGE marketing advantage and is going to sell more bikes than if they were equal or below their competitors.

IOW, a bike manufacture is not going to avoid offering more HP just because a road racer may not need or want the extra HP. They're not in the business to win road races.

[JohnPaul]

I'd say riding a 150 HP Superbike bike back in the day was a TON harder than these 200-210 HP bikes now.
The traction control, super advanced electronic fuel injection, dual compound tires, geometry optimised chassis, etc, etc have taken a truckload of pucker factor out of hauling it on 2 wheels these days, and has had a massive "taming" effect on the new stuff.

come on buddy, no doubt bikes are alot easier to race than even 10 years ago but 200hp is alot different than 150 and I don't care about traction control, dual compound tires or anythng else. People are still gettin launched highsiding more than ever.

Don't forget that drag racers, street racers and dyno gangs don't care about how hard it is to control a bike on a race track, and they probably affect sales a lot more than road racers. If Brand A has 5-10 more HP than Brand B, Brand A has a HUGE marketing advantage and is going to sell more bikes than if they were equal or below their competitors.

IOW, a bike manufacture is not going to avoid offering more HP just because a road racer may not need or want the extra HP. They're not in the business to win road races.

I disagree, road racing bikes and winning is the only thing that drives sales for the everyday Joe street rider. And drag racers are using (for the most part) Hayabusa and ZX14's. And most serious riders don't even look at those bikes because they are so big and heavy.

[Daryl DeArman]

I disagree, road racing bikes and winning is the only thing that drives sales for the everyday Joe street rider. And drag racers are using (for the most part) Hayabusa and ZX14's. And most serious riders don't even look at those bikes because they are so big and heavy.

Road racing efforts/success is what drives sales of the liter bikes. The stunting crowd and street racers dont want a liter bike because they are too slow....they've got to have the Hayabusa or ZX14 so they can blast down the interstate at 190 filming their YouTube videos.

Even if the HP settles around 200-220 over the next 10 years, there is going to be a bunch more HP available under the curve. Maybe 7 speed transmissions.

In any event, motor development isn't going to stop. How the FB class decides is best to deal with that is up to them. I believe it is better to be proactive than reactive, which is exactly why we have the shifter ordeal now.

[JohnPaul]

Road racing efforts/success is what drives sales of the liter bikes. The stunting crowd and street racers dont want a liter bike because they are too slow....they've got to have the Hayabusa or ZX14 so they can blast down the interstate at 190 filming their YouTube videos.

Even if the HP settles around 200-220 over the next 10 years, there is going to be a bunch more HP available under the curve. Maybe 7 speed transmissions.

In any event, motor development isn't going to stop. How the FB class decides is best to deal with that is up to them. I believe it is better to be proactive than reactive, which is exactly why we have the shifter ordeal now.

I wouldn't bet on that. I'd bet 90% of the guys on those video stunting are using 1000cc bikes. They're doing wheelies at 120 mph they don't want a Hayabusa or ZX14, they might as well be using Harleys. *** but they will take a 1000cc bike and work the crap out of an engine.
Who knows where this class will be in 10 years but I think it'll be fantastic.

[Daryl DeArman]

Who knows where this class will be in 10 years but I think it'll be fantastic.

Hope so!

Maybe it's an East Coast/West Coast cultural thing. Yes, we have a lot of 1000cc bikes out here riding the canyons and stuff but the jackasses blasting down the freeway and drag racing are riding ZX14's and Hayabusas---stretched swing-arms and all....they aren't riding wheelies.

[JerryH]

Dave (Gomberg)

I thought we were going to get a rules clarification on the current rules regarding shifters......not a proposal for a rules change. Is that in the works or not?

Thanks,

Jerry

[R. Pare]

Hopefully the talk about the future motors is over for the moment - the speculations haven't happened as yet, and the CRB already has a means in place (restrictors) to cap HP output if the scenarios happen. Right now, this thread needs to concentrate on the shifter issue.

My own take is a lot like Rennie's - if you want to make sure that you cannot possibly get any sort of advantage by spending big bucks on a shift system, then the only thing you can do is to allow only mechanical means ( tubular links and/or cables) to transmit the motion from the drivers hand.

Anything else, no matter how you word it, I believe will allow some means of interrupting the shift action or signal to avoid over revs - there is always a way around the selected wording if one is imaginative enough and has the resources.

However, that does not mean that I agree with disallowing electronic means of blipping the throttle and preventing over-revs - I think that would prove out to be counterproductive in the long run.

Think of the money spent on an over-rev device as an insurance policy : shift in the wrong spot at the wrong time and not only can the engine be blown, but the car can be crashed, possibly taking out another car or two at the same time.

The monies saved from preventing that happening even once far outweighs the initial cost concerns.

As a group, you guys need to sit down and sort out what you want, and then write up a bullet-proof rule - with the Club seeming to lean more and more towards allowing whatever interpretation someone can come up with that sounds even remotely reasonable, instead of using common sense and applying the "spirit of the rules" or "intent" (even F1 still goes by "spirit of the rules" in their judgments), unless you decide NOW what the class is going to be, don't be surprised if it morphs into something else altogether.

[sccadsr31]

[FONT=Arial]Although I am a member of the FSRAC I am not speaking for the committee.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]How about the following wording? [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]4 - Mechanical linkages, cable operated gear shifters, electro-mechanical shifters, air-shifters and any combination of systems are permitted. Each gear change must be initiated by the driver; multiple gear changes initiated by a single action by the driver are prohibited. Systems that allow pre-selected gear changes including delayed or queued shifts are prohibited. Systems that allow for the rejection of a shift for the purpose of protecting the engine from over-rev and having no performance enhancing effects are permitted. Throttle blippers and ignition and or/fuel interrupters are permitted as long as the system/mechanism, and method of actuation does not exert any control of the gear shift.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]Would this be enforceable, no, because detection of suffocated electronic systems buried in the wiring and depths of the chassis would be beyond the detection capability of SCCA, however it states the intent. Competitors are essentially on the honor system to not use “smart” gear shifter systems; people who want to cheat are always going to find a way. [/FONT]

David Arken

[bill gillespie]

[FONT=Arial]Although I am a member of the FSRAC I am not speaking for the committee.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]How about the following wording? [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]4 - Mechanical linkages, cable operated gear shifters, electro-mechanical shifters, air-shifters and any combination of systems are permitted. Each gear change must be initiated by the driver; multiple gear changes initiated by a single action by the driver are prohibited. Systems that allow pre-selected gear changes including delayed or queued shifts are prohibited. Systems that allow for the rejection of a shift for the purpose of protecting the engine from over-rev and having no performance enhancing effects are permitted. Throttle blippers and ignition and or/fuel interrupters are permitted as long as the system/mechanism, and method of actuation does not exert any control of the gear shift.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]Would this be enforceable, no, because detection of suffocated electronic systems buried in the wiring and depths of the chassis would be beyond the detection capability of SCCA, however it states the intent. Competitors are essentially on the honor system to not use “smart” gear shifter systems; people who want to cheat are always going to find a way. [/FONT]

David Arken

+1...what he said

[Mike B]

[FONT=Arial]Although I am a member of the FSRAC I am not speaking for the committee.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]How about the following wording? [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]4 - Mechanical linkages, cable operated gear shifters, electro-mechanical shifters, air-shifters and any combination of systems are permitted. Each gear change must be initiated by the driver; multiple gear changes initiated by a single action by the driver are prohibited. Systems that allow pre-selected gear changes including delayed or queued shifts are prohibited. Systems that allow for the rejection of a shift for the purpose of protecting the engine from over-rev and having no performance enhancing effects are permitted. Throttle blippers and ignition and or/fuel interrupters are permitted as long as the system/mechanism, and method of actuation does not exert any control of the gear shift.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial]Would this be enforceable, no, because detection of suffocated electronic systems buried in the wiring and depths of the chassis would be beyond the detection capability of SCCA, however it states the intent. Competitors are essentially on the honor system to not use “smart” gear shifter systems; people who want to cheat are always going to find a way. [/FONT]

David Arken

How is this different from the current rule?

Again, most rules in most classes are on the honor system for 70 of the 71 National races. Why is difficulty in policing suddenly a deterrent for writing a rule?

How about the following wording?

"Gear position sensors are prohibited."


Keep in mind that we're talking about one of the simplest road race cars in the club, not a sedan with miles of OEM wire harness and steel body panels to hide it all.

[Jnovak]

Right now, this thread needs to concentrate on the shifter issue.

My own take is a lot like Rennie's - if you want to make sure that you cannot possibly get any sort of advantage by spending big bucks on a shift system, then the only thing you can do is to allow only mechanical means ( tubular links and/or cables) to transmit the motion from the drivers hand.

Anything else, no matter how you word it, I believe will allow some means of interrupting the shift action or signal to avoid over revs - there is always a way around the selected wording if one is imaginative enough and has the resources.

However, that does not mean that I agree with disallowing electronic means of blipping the throttle and preventing over-revs - I think that would prove out to be counterproductive in the long run.

Think of the money spent on an over-rev device as an insurance policy : shift in the wrong spot at the wrong time and not only can the engine be blown, but the car can be crashed, possibly taking out another car or two at the same time.

The monies saved from preventing that happening even once far outweighs the initial cost concerns.

As a group, you guys need to sit down and sort out what you want, and then write up a bullet-proof rule - with the Club seeming to lean more and more towards allowing whatever interpretation someone can come up with that sounds even remotely reasonable, instead of using common sense and applying the "spirit of the rules" or "intent" (even F1 still goes by "spirit of the rules" in their judgments), unless you decide NOW what the class is going to be, don't be surprised if it morphs into something else altogether.

Richard's concept of a mechanical shifter with assisted throttle blipping of any type is a great idea IMHO. This would clearly prevent the potential eacalation in cost and complexity associated unlimited shift assist system while still providing 90% of the benefits of existing systems.

IMHO FB has a ton of potential to grow but cost & complexity must remain under control. This is Club Racing not Formula1. Let the drivers be the difference wherever possible not the $$$.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[RussMcB]

+1...what he said

I'm no longer an FB racer, but just to give David some more positive feedback, it sounds good to me, too.

How about the following wording?

"Gear position sensors are prohibited.".

Sorry, Mike, I don't get this statement. Can you elaborate? Is that an existing rule, or are you proposing it? Sorry if I'm dense.

<snip> Let the drivers be the difference wherever possible not the $$$.

Right on!

[Mike B]

Sorry, Mike, I don't get this statement. Can you elaborate? Is that an existing rule, or are you proposing it? Sorry if I'm dense.

It all depends on what the intent of the rule is. In my opinion, we intended to allow electric or pneumatic actuators, nothing more. The "problem" is that we now have F1-like CPUs (GCUs) that make extra decisions on a closed-loop. Maybe I'm oversimplifying but if there is no gear position sensor (easy to detect), there is no closed-loop.

It's more of an example of how to approach the rule clarification than an actual rule proposal. It's possible that much smarter people could figure out a way around it, as it's also possible that some future bike may require the sensor for some more mundane function.

The point is, remove the components that allow the closed-loopness instead of trying to write a convoluted rule (that still uses the word "initiate" ) that people can torture and parse to fit their need.

[Wren]

How is this different from the current rule?

I don't think it is supposed to be. I think it is supposed to be a clarification of the rule we have now. It just doesn't **** over the people who spent their money putting a legal part on their car.

Let the drivers be the difference wherever possible not the $$$.

Sounds boring. Then it would just be Niki winning every race he entered. Everyone knows he is the best driver in the field.

Formula classes are supposed to be about the best package of car and driver. Taking the shifters off doesn't change the podium order at the runoffs.

[Daryl DeArman]

I feel like cheaters find a way to cheat is a cop-out for writing an enforceable rule.

As somebody else said up above (Richard?)

The particpants in the class need to first decide what they want.
Then they need to decide what they want to prevent.
Then draft a rule to that end.

At first glance eliminating all gear position sensors might have the short term result of eliminating these types of systems. However, it's only a matter of hours before the system uses two rpm sensors and a math channel to figure out what gear the trans is in or just an "if the current rpms exceed this number do not allow a downshift".

[Rennie Clayton]

At first glance eliminating all gear position sensors might have the short term result of eliminating these types of systems. However, it's only a matter of hours before the system uses two rpm sensors and a math channel to figure out what gear the trans is in or just an "if the current rpms exceed this number do not allow a downshift".

Daryl,

Let me bring your attention to my recommendation from Page 1:

Require that the shifting system be discrete and self-contained with no connections to other controllers / external systems / ECUs / sensors / etc. Let the shifter be as sophisticated as one desires, but without access to things like RPM, wheelspeed, gear position and so forth, you have effectively broken the closed loop. If the system has a controller there should be no connections other than for power, shifter buttons, and to the disparate physical actuators required to shift, clutch or blip throttles.

What I would suggest is to essentially make the shifting systems unrestricted, within the constraint of being blind to external data.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Mike Devins]

What is wrong with the "downshift reject shift" feature that eliminates over rev'ing the engine?

[R. Pare]

Personally, I think that trying to outlaw self-contained electronic systems that blip the throttle and prevent mechanical over-revs is counterproductive.

Contrary to what I wrote above, even if you restrict the shifting mechanism to tube links and/or cables, I can use some readily available, relatively inexpensive components that will perform the task of locking out the shift action if the revs are too high - and it would have zero physical connection to the shift rails and/or cables. Even the gear position sensors (if used) would have no physical connection to the actual shifting mechanism.

(And no, I'm not going to tell you how this setup works! )

We already know that throttle blipping can be done mechanically.

If I were building a car, I'd much rather spend the money on an off-the-shelf, self-contained electronic system that has already proven to work pretty flawlessly than spend the time and money getting a one-off mechanical system sorted that does the same thing.

Leave the rule alone, except for writing it better ( the proposal by sccadsr31 is not a bad start)

[bill gillespie]

I feel like cheaters find a way to cheat is a cop-out for writing an enforceable rule.

As somebody else said up above (Richard?)

The particpants in the class need to first decide what they want.
Then they need to decide what they want to prevent.
Then draft a rule to that end.

At first glance eliminating all gear position sensors might have the short term result of eliminating these types of systems. However, it's only a matter of hours before the system uses two rpm sensors and a math channel to figure out what gear the trans is in or just an "if the current rpms exceed this number do not allow a downshift".

IMO the biggest advantage of the gear position sensor is that it avoids dog-on-dog engagement....up and down. I'm all for anyting that helps prevent me from blowing up my gearbox, spinning in my own oil, and taking out the leaders as they lap me...again.

Besides, the math channels of a good data logger are very good at annunciating current gear position.

Regards,
Bill

[Wren]

What is wrong with the "downshift reject shift" feature that eliminates over rev'ing the engine?

Who knows?

This whole thing is kind of strange. The geartronics shifters haven't proven themselves to be a must have item unless someone thinks that Brandon and Tom only finished in front of Niki because of the shifters.

I don't understand the odd obsession with them either.

[Daryl DeArman]

What is wrong with the "downshift reject shift" feature that eliminates over rev'ing the engine?

That should be up for the participants to ultimately decide. Some want all the technological gizmos possible, it's part of their attraction to the class. Others want the driver as large a factor as possible.

Who knows?

This whole thing is kind of strange. The geartronics shifters haven't proven themselves to be a must have item unless someone thinks that Brandon and Tom only finished in front of Niki because of the shifters.

Brandon and Tom may not have finished in front of Niki only because of the shifters. But they certainly didn't put all that money and time into the shifter to give Niki an advantage. It really is that simple. We can argue whether they are good/bad for the class. Whether they mean .05 a second a lap or 1 second over a 30 minute race or 10 seconds until we are blue in the face. Fact is people don't purposely spend money and time developing the entire package to go slower.

[RussMcB]

<snip> The geartronics shifters haven't proven themselves to be a must have item ... <snip>

Maybe not "must-have", but there's no doubt they are making the job of driving easier, and lap times faster. I know I've heard at least one driver talk about how he was having a hard time downshifting at a rate that matched the car's braking ability, but the geartronics solved that problem.

It's nice that it may save an engine or transmission, but let's not kid ourselves and say it doesn't make a driver faster. I'm pretty sure people are spending $5k+ because it makes them faster, not because it's good insurance to save a $2k engine.

[Jnovak]

I am certainly not against aided shifting in FB. What I am against is an unlimited rule that will allow a huge escallation in cost to race at the front. Do not think that it will not happen, it always does if a rule is left that allows anything.

A big increase in the cost to race at the front will simply prevent newcomers from entering FB. This will not be good for the future of the class.

We need a simple clarification or re-write of the current rule that will allow for some level of assisted shifting.

I have noted some great comments & suggestions that could help with this issue. Perhaps Rennie's suggestion that no external sensor connection be allowed such as engine RPM, gear position, vehicle speed etc.

I personally like the idea of a mechanical shifter but then allow assisted throttle blipping along with ignition or fuel interupt for flat shifting. This would allow for extremely functional assisted shifting while keeping costs quite low.

I am certain that there are others with perhaps even better ideas.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[R. Pare]

I have noted some great comments & suggestions that could help with this issue. Perhaps Rennie's suggestion that no external sensor connection be allowed such as engine RPM, gear position, vehicle speed etc.

And if the external sensors are NOT an integral part of the actual shift system? Are they covered in that ban? How will that affect the usual engine sensors?

Just getting you thinking about wording.

[blackbmwk1200r]

. Perhaps Rennie's suggestion that no external sensor connection be allowed such as engine RPM, gear position, vehicle speed etc.

From the Geartronics website:

In summary: for any serious semi-auto shift system to work consistently & reliably, the GCU needs to measure as an absolute minimum the gearbox barrel position (not the shift lever position), throttle position and engine speed

I interpret this statement as their belief that these realtime measurements are absolute prerequisites for their or any other semi-auto shift system to shift properly and at the same time protect the engine and transmission from shift related damage.

[starkejt]

This continues to remind me of the "aero wheels" that were going to drive the cost of running at the front in FF higher and higher unless they were stopped. In the end, it was a mountain out of a mole hill. A couple years later, and nobody really cares about them because they weren't the difference maker that everyone feared. And the guys that bought them weren't forced to scrap them in the name of keeping everyone else's costs down.

The Geartronics and other systems are much the same. People are going to realize that they aren't a prerequisite for front-running. They are just like ceramic wheel bearings with REM and MicroBlue treatment, high-efficiency brake pedals with the latest calipers, spending time and money on getting your bodywork to have perfect gaps, going on a chassis dyno with several different chains to see if one makes more power at the wheels, buying the latest wing setups from Dauntless et al, magnesium wheels, stickers every session, renting half a day in a wind tunnel, etc. etc. Does that mean everyone has to do any of those things to run at the front? Of course not. Someone could spend 10x Geartronics cost on all of those other things, plus a dozen other things, and nobody would be screaming for rules changes. If I were to build a $150,000 car with every $$$ trick in the book, minus the Geartronics, no one would cry foul. But a $60,000 car, plus a $4-5k shifter, and the sky is falling.

[JohnPaul]

What is wrong with the "downshift reject shift" feature that eliminates over rev'ing the engine?

Let me answer your question: the people that are opposed don't sell that system. Underdstood?

Isn't the bottom line that mechanical/cable shifter systems suck ass? if they worked we wouldn't be having this discussion. This isn't a car engine, cable/mechanical shifters don't work properly on MC engines. We shouldn't have to be subject to using only them as per current rules.

[Mike B]

I interpret this statement as their belief that these realtime measurements are absolute prerequisites for their or any other semi-auto shift system to shift properly and at the same time protect the engine and transmission from shift related damage.

Now you're getting it!

Let me answer your question: the people that are opposed don't sell that system. Underdstood?

Isn't the bottom line that mechanical/cable shifter systems suck ass? if they worked we wouldn't be having this discussion. This isn't a car engine, cable/mechanical shifters don't work properly on MC engines. We shouldn't have to be subject to using only them as per current rules.

Unfortunately, you're not.

If people were opposed to a closed-loop system because they don't sell it, that would mean that EVERYONE except one person would be opposed to it, at least the Geartronics system.

Read post # 104 (especially the last paragraph)
Read post # 105
Read post # 106 (especially the second paragraph)

The Geartronics and other systems are much the same. People are going to realize that they aren't a prerequisite for front-running.

Not a prerequisite, but certainly a requirement. There might be a couple people following this thread that you can convince otherwise, but a majority are smarter than that.

They are just like ceramic wheel bearings with REM and MicroBlue treatment, high-efficiency brake pedals with the latest calipers, spending time and money on getting your bodywork to have perfect gaps, going on a chassis dyno with several different chains to see if one makes more power at the wheels, buying the latest wing setups from Dauntless et al, magnesium wheels, stickers every session, renting half a day in a wind tunnel, etc. etc. Does that mean everyone has to do any of those things to run at the front? Of course not. Someone could spend 10x Geartronics cost on all of those other things, plus a dozen other things, and nobody would be screaming for rules changes. If I were to build a $150,000 car with every $$$ trick in the book, minus the Geartronics, no one would cry foul. But a $60,000 car, plus a $4-5k shifter, and the sky is falling.

You forgot $50,000 shocks.
Look, the rules were written primarily to keep cost down and keep the playing field as level as possible. If we overlooked a small loophole that has significant ramifications, it's in the best interest of the club and the class to arrive at a compromise that closes that loophole and makes most people happy (or at least content.) You can still spend all the money you want on other items that are clearly permitted by the rules but if we can eliminate just one of those super-expensive items, it improves the health of the class.

[sccadsr31]

[FONT=Verdana][FONT=Verdana]John Paul,[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]From a purely scientific point of view can you defend your statement mechanical/cable shifters don't work?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Ultimately all the shifters have mechanical linkage. Isn't the reason for using assisted shifting: 1) To reduce the shift time interval? 2) Paddle shifters with cables are very difficult to build? 3) WOW factor of electronic paddle shifters?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]None of these systems weigh less than a simple left hand cable shifter.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana][FONT=Verdana]In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong with a properly built cable shifter on MC powered cars. I have thousands of laps in my DSR and have never damaged a transmission; it currently has a left hand cable shifter and for a long time had a right hand mechanical linkage which was slower than the left hand cable. I run a ZX10r and also have many hours and laps in Fox's GSXR powerd car with a left hand cable shifter and have not damaged those transmissions either. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]I don't have one (assisted shifter) because it does not fit into my budget and shifting is way down the list on why I'm not up front. Beginners in the class should not be made to believe that they have to have one at the beginning of their involvement.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]David Arken[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[VehDyn]

Let me answer your question: the people that are opposed don't sell that system. Underdstood?

Isn't the bottom line that mechanical/cable shifter systems suck ass? if they worked we wouldn't be having this discussion. This isn't a car engine, cable/mechanical shifters don't work properly on MC engines. We shouldn't have to be subject to using only them as per current rules.

Personally, I support the idea of the shifters, but John Paul, you are way off base on this one. The vast majority DSRs use a cable based system and have for years. The guy won won the runoffs used a bump shifter as opposed to the steering wheel paddles. He was going old school.
Numerous have tried the electric solenoid ones but the old systems had some reliability issues and it wasnt worth any time that could be gained. Some still run a simpler pneumatic system. Most run a non assisted.

[starkejt]

Not a prerequisite, but certainly a requirement. There might be a couple people following this thread that you can convince otherwise, but a majority are smarter than that.




You forgot $50,000 shocks.
Look, the rules were written primarily to keep cost down and keep the playing field as level as possible. If we overlooked a small loophole that has significant ramifications, it's in the best interest of the club and the class to arrive at a compromise that closes that loophole and makes most people happy (or at least content.) You can still spend all the money you want on other items that are clearly permitted by the rules but if we can eliminate just one of those super-expensive items, it improves the health of the class.

I didn't forget the shocks, I covered that with the phrase "a dozen other things." Where can I get $50,000 shocks? I'm intrigued. I still don't see the logic of "if we ban this one thing but continue to allow these other more expensive things, it will keep costs in check." And telling 10+ people to shove it, their shifters are now illegal, and they have to put in another 80-100 hours of work, not to mention the money aspect, is certainly going to drive some of them away. Make sure it's worth it before advocating such a plan. Just saying "it improves the health of the class" doesn't make it so. Just like saying a Geartronics is required to run up front doesn't make it so.

[R. Pare]

Where can I get $50,000 shocks?

Just send me a check and I'll make sure you get a set!

[starkejt]

Just send me a check and I'll make sure you get a set!

Should I make the check out to Corporate Amalgamated Securities and Holdings, or can I just abbreviate that, like I did with the donation I sent you for the Chicago All-Saints Hospital?

[Northwind]

Question?

If a person were to continually/rapidly flutter the down shift micro switch on the Geartronics system, wouldn't the system be fooled into a automatic down shift condition seeing as it only accepts the shifts that it is progammed for?

[Wren]

Question?

If a person were to continually/rapidly flutter the down shift micro switch on the Geartronics system, wouldn't the system be fooled into a automatic down shift condition seeing as it only accepts the shifts that it is progammed for?

Sort of, but you won't end up in the gear that you are looking for and it would never be the fast way around the track.

[starkejt]

Question?

If a person were to continually/rapidly flutter the down shift micro switch on the Geartronics system, wouldn't the system be fooled into a automatic down shift condition seeing as it only accepts the shifts that it is progammed for?

In practice, no. You would be unable to predict which gear you'd end up in. If you were trying to end up in 1st, this MIGHT work, but you'd never hit any other gear reliably doing that. Also, the system has a limp-home mode that you might inadvertently engage by doing this, but I'm not sure if fluttering the switch would trigger it. It is designed to allow you to keep going if a system component fails, so you may convince the system that the switch has failed.

[Rennie Clayton]

In practice, no. You would be unable to predict which gear you'd end up in. If you were trying to end up in 1st, this MIGHT work, but you'd never hit any other gear reliably doing that. Also, the system has a limp-home mode that you might inadvertently engage by doing this, but I'm not sure if fluttering the switch would trigger it. It is designed to allow you to keep going if a system component fails, so you may convince the system that the switch has failed.

Right, in other words the Geartronics system reverts to a "dumb" timing-based open loop system when the requisite sensors are disconnected from the system.


Cheers,
Rennie