Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton
That is a system you could replicate for a few hundred dollars of other components. No one should act like they wouldn't be absolutely screwing over the people with the geartronics if they banned the closed loop part of the shifter.
Correct, but I'm not 100% of all the circumstances that will trigger the limp mode. Plus you have to push a button 3 times to get the limp mode once something goes wrong. Sometimes in static testing, you can end up with the system unresponsive to shift inputs until you put it in limp mode. Also, the limp mode is not particularly good. I'd yank the system off the car if that was the only mode available.
I haven't put anything in pejorative terms, but do find it interesting that you go there immediately.
Is what I said accurate?
Cheers,
Rennie
Likely a question for Mr. Wallace to elaborate on, then.
Cheers,
Rennie
Pretty sure Wren is correct on what you were implying. Let's not pretend his mind went their on its own. Isn't that the reaction you were hoping for?
What you said is halfway accurate in that yes, the limp mode is open loop, but no one would want to use it that way because it doesn't offer much over a mechanical shifter. In fact, it would probably be worse due to the added weight of the system over a mechanical linkage.
If you set the parameters up to only accept a downshift between let's say an optimized 8500 and 8800 rpm range and this happens to be the range that you are targeting for corner entry how would fluttering cause you miss the proper gear since it only makes the shift when the proper conditions are met and will not make the next shift unless the conditions are met for the next lower gear?
Because it's not a range that you set. You set the overrev RPM. So if your shift request won't overrev, you get it. I had it set at 13,000 rpm. So any shift you ask for that won't send it over 13,000 gets allowed.
Thanks for the answers. I'm just trying to understand the system.
There have been posts in this thread saying that requiring open loop operation would protect the investment of geartronics purchasers. I just wanted to make it extremely clear how inaccurate that statement was.
Wow, you two do seem to be making a habit of speaking on behalf of my motives!
Um, no. I was after facts, and I got spew. I am not pretending in the slightest, and I do not appreciate your implication. Wren needs to take responsibility for his own reaction here - I had no hand in it. I would genuinely like to know how the system behaves - is that so extraordinarily difficult to believe? Leave this ad-hominem junk at the door, please.
On that vein - it would appear anecdotally that the Geartronics system would continue to operate in open loop mode, with low-ish fidelity TBD pending some commentary from Neil about how fine tuned the system can be made in that mode. You may call it crap today, but how much time have you honestly spent trying to optimize it?
The sky is hardly falling, in my opinion, but the fact remains that a philosophical decision must be arrived at vis-Ã -vis having the shifting system be capable of overriding the decision of the driver. Aside from eliminating the closed-loop aspect, I do not see any viable, enforceable options other than a) declaring the shifting system unrestricted, or b) manual shifters. Do you?
Cheers,
Rennie
[FONT=Verdana][FONT=Verdana][FONT=Verdana]=Mike B;277311]Now you're getting it![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Unfortunately, you're not.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Read post # 104 (especially the last paragraph)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Read post # 105[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Read post # 106 (especially the second paragraph)[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Well, I think I’m right, So who are the people that are opposed? we'll see soon enough in from your survey.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Post #104: that's the first time Niki didn't beat them. All the while he beat them with the Geartronics[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Post #105: Yeah and? do you spend $1000 on a new set of tires so you can go faster? Plus the system doesn't make you go faster it (even as advertised on the geartronic's website) it's not nitrous, but yes it is a drivers tools so they can drive better which in itself = faster times.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]#106: not buying it. FB is growing fast right now as the rules stand. The only people standing on the sidelines are the people that see this fighting over changing the rules. I'm sure you'll lose people if you change the rules on shifters. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]I can already see a large majority on your survey favor open shifter rules.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]2 things: 1) sequential shifters, it is hard enough to down shift at speed with my electronic shift system, everyone that has a cable systems says they hate them are switching 2) the shift lever is designed to be engaged with your foot which makes setting up a cable shift system not the greatest.[/FONT][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]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=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]David Arken[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]If a cable shifter works for you than stick with it. The DSR champ used a bump shifter and it turned out good, don't you think? But let's not get any idea's that people not running up front is do to a shift system.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Yes he won the run off's and I'm sure it had nothing to do with shifters and that is exactly my point, you can't say that these shift systems are unfair or that you need one to be competitive. But there is not doubt that these new shift systems are much better than a standard cable/mechanical system. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana][FONT=Verdana]VehDyn;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. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]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.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]That's my point of view. I think everyone should take the survey so we can see how the majority feels on this topic:[/FONT]
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42948
Last edited by JohnPaul; 11.28.10 at 9:01 PM.
You aren't getting a clarification because the rules currently allow the geartronics shifter system.
They are asking for input on whether or not they should try to change the rule.
Saying something doesn't actually make it true. Pissing off the people in the class because you "think" that it will bring in more people is not a good idea. Pissing off people with options is also a bad idea. There are likely to be just as many people attracted to the class as turned off because of the shifters. The only ones that you can be sure of are the people already in the class, so you cannot know that you will be doing the class a favor by pissing off the top participators.
Remember that the people with the shifters are also the people who are out running the races to make the class meet the minimum participation numbers.
There are always people who say that they will join a class if some rule is changed or something else is changed. The rules get changed and they are still on the sidelines. People who want to do something go and do it.
I'm sorry, but given that you were involved the last time we discussed how the system works for umpteen pages, and given that you're no fool, I still think you were implying the sentiment to which Wren reacted. Additionally, I think I made a decent effort at giving you the facts you asked for as I understand them. I don't think it's ad-hominem junk to respond to something I felt you implied. I may be incorrect about your implication, but that doesn't make it an ad hominem attack.
I don't see how you could enforce an open-loop only rule either.
Josh,
To my knowledge, in the previous thread we discussed no aspects of the Geartronics system as pertaining to open-loop operation, or how it behaved in the case of ancillary system failure. I was ignorant to the capability of the system to operate in this fashion. In fact, your post about a limp-home mode a page or two ago is the first I recall hearing about such a thing. It's possible that I've overlooked something, but that is the first time I recall it, and as such felt that it was a perfectly legitemate line of commentary + questioning.
Think what you will of my motives then, but your opinion won't change the fact of what they are in reality. I will say this - I have never impugned your motives, belittled the message based on what I perceive your motives to be, nor have I reacted in such a grossly immature way as Wren just did. I appreciate the fact that you have more or less disagreed with me on those terms, though I would appreciate it even more if Wren could see his way to behaving on those same terms as well.
Now, with regard to enforcing open-loop only, I'm game to discuss it if you are. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't seem much interested in it though.
Cheers,
Rennie
Can't speak for Wren. He's a big boy, but I don't think he's guilty of much beyond being blunt and perhaps maybe a touch abrasive. And I don't think I impugned your motives by reading between the lines of your statement. I may well have wrongly read between the lines, but that is far from impugning your motives.
Regarding a discussion of open-loop only rule enforcement, you're right, I'm probably lukewarm about such a discussion, but only because such a rule would kill my interest in this class, so for me, it would be an academic discussion. But I'm sure plenty of other people would be interested in how to word and enforce a rule like that, so feel free to post any thoughts you may have.
I would like to thank you for teaching me that impugn has a "g" in it, though.
I have no issue with the paddle shifter per se, but I'm not entirely comfortable with a system that rejects a shift if it will over rev the motor. I can see how that would be desirable certainly, but part of the skill in racing is not to make these mistakes and separates the better drivers from the not so mechanically sympathetic. Just a thought!
Please help me out here with what I said that was so grossly immature? This:
Nothing grossly immature there.
I didn't say that you had claimed that it would protect geartronics owners investments, other people have claimed that.
So far you are the only one calling names and then crying about ad hominem attacks. I'm not sure you understand what those words mean if you think that was an ad hominem attack.
That about sums it up.
I just scrolled through the last couple of pages of this thread and did not see a single personal attack from me to someone else. I did see where I was called grossly immature.
So if we allow closed loop systems (not pointing to Geartronics) how would we know if some system hasn't been set up to have upper and lower shift limits for up shift and/or down shift thus making an automatic transmission thru some form of creative engineering. It seems to me that this could turn into an absolute nightmare.
Anybody much smarter than me have any ideas on how to regulate this potential, or do we turn into the first class in SCCA that allows fully automatic transmissions.
Any ideas?
You mean you're not?
would having an fully automatic car be an advantage?
Not necessarily - an inopportune shift at a spot where it needs to shift again in 20 feet would most likely slow you down a fair amount.
Nah, though I'll cop to gratuitous name calling.
Not sure I follow you here, but - your only interest in this class was that it allowed you push-button shifting and to install an electronic control unit that prevents you from over-revving the engine on downshifts... but you'd leave this class for another one (FC) that still doesn't allow either of those things?
How does the Geartronics system receive the inputs for RPM, speed, throttle position, etc.?
Wren would say "such a system will never be the fastest way around the track" - I don't entirely agree, but concede that such an undertaking would be monstrously complex. It's not for nothing, however that F1 pursued exactly this, and it was banned.
I don't believe the sky is falling, but this is precisely the question I raised in the previous / locked thread. If that's what's desired, then so be it, but please, do so with wide-eyed appreciation for the implications to the class. I personally like the idea of leaving the shifters unrestricted, but then again I'm also the guy who was roundly boo'd for advocating carbon tubs. So take that for what it's worth.
Cheers,
Rennie
I agree with this.
Unfortunately the unrestricted shifters have already been deemed legal and I can't see changing it now after alot of money has been spent by alot of people.
And yes Northwind, we now have the first automatic class. Someone will push it to the limit. Guaranteed.
John Paul, I built my own mechanical paddle shifter, nothing but a cable and a palddle and it's the best thing I've put on my car so far. Don't speak for the world in your post. Your only one guy.
Sending letter to somebody in the SCCA(?) to leave the rules alone and let's just worry about racing.
Jerry
Reading what some of you are posting about open vs closed loop systems is like watching the Beverly Hillbillies build a moon rocket. I can't stop laughing. Except that when I read it it makes me sad. It makes me wonder where your head is at, 'cause it can't be attached. No way.
It was posted earlier but seeing how there is such an enormous information gap between reality and fantasy maybe it'll be a good thing to post it again. If you want to understand the REAL difference between open and closed loop systems read this:
http://www.geartronics.co.uk/closedloop.htm
There is no performance or speed advantage to running a closed loop system over an open one. It's all in your mind......
The only real advantage is that a closed loop system is simply much more reliable than an open loop system.
The problem with open loop systems is they are not any better than that gear lever in FC/FF you use by jerking your hand back and forth. If you are to allow only open loop shifters then you might as well just ban all shifters and go back in time to just the old manual FC/FF shifting method. There really is no reason to have an open loop shifter. You are just as likely to miss a gear and blow up your engine as you would using the old FC/FF lever method (which actually might account for all the blown motors we have seen in this class).
I have no interest in running an open loop system. Why would I want to expose myself to the potential of several blown engines a season by using one? That's just dumb.
.
Last edited by Thomas Copeland; 11.28.10 at 11:04 PM. Reason: Shorten for you alls attention span
I feel like I'm reading the Radon thread... but simply another topic. Like the Radon anti-intrusion side panels not providing additional stiffness and a performance advantage, the closed loop shifter system is really to prevent engines from blowing up!
I see all that as "spin". It might help prevent engines form blowing up, but what about the back-torque limiting clutch? Wasn't that supposed to help prevent that? The fact that the closed loop system provides more reliability, especially in reliably downshifting to get the desired gear, then it IS a performance advantage. When I first started with the 06 Yamaha without a back limiting clutch and a rod and spherical shifter system, it took me a while to get the hang of going from 6th to 1st. It took a bit of feel to make it consistently happen. This is a perfect example of the machine/driver interface that goes away with the Geartronics.
So I'm on board with Ben and Jerry (not ice cream) - I lament the fact that we went down this road, but now that we have, it's too late to return. The train left the station. Just race the things.
Well stated.
Rather wide brush you are painting with. Rules of certain classes DO keep folks from participating in that class. Most of us choose the class we race in specifically because of the rules. Doesn't it make sense that some stay out for exactly the same reason?
Shifter or no/shifter I was "out" of FB along time ago. I won't race what I can't afford to wad up and be back at it real soon. I don't expect the rules of FB to change to suit my needs anymore than the rules of GT1.
But now that the train has left, do you feel something should be done to prevent a different/better/faster train from leaving? Better to be proactive than reactive.
What I meant was if the rules were changed to retroactively ban Geartronics (which your open-loop only idea would do), rather than spend however much time and money taking the car apart to make it FB compliant again, I'd prefer to put the effort into a zetec conversion. I didn't mean my only interest in FB was the shifters. We built the Citation before I had heard of Geartronics, and had gone through 2.5 or so iterations of mechanical shifters that didn't work before the paddle shift ever showed up on my radar.
The Geartronics taps off the factory RPM and throttle position sensor signals, interrupts the factory ignition circuit when necessary, and has a fancy rotary encoder on the transmission that tells it the position of the barrel at all times.
Just speaking for myself....I'm sure your paddle shifter is fantastic
Why would you have to take the car apart to make it FB compliant? Wouldn't you want to keep the pneumatic system?
.
If it had to be "dumb" or "open loop," and I was determined to be in FB, I'd just ditch the 17 lbs. or so of the Geartronics system and try harder to make a mechanical setup work. With closed loop, reliably getting a shift every time is worth the added weight in my opinion. That's the advantage as I see it. Driver gets to spend less time worrying about whether he will get his shifts done in time. If I could have figured out a mechanical setup that worked consistently, I would much rather have not paid $4k to make the car 17 lbs. heavier. I don't know how much to blame the driver in our case. He was never very good at shifting an LD200 either. Maybe a more coordinated driver (Mr. Loshak or perhaps Mr. Coello) would have no problem with the bump shifters we tried. I do wish it were simpler to go back to the old shifter to try to get a back to back comparison, but then I'd feel awfully stupid if it turned out the Geartronics wasn't enough better to overcome its own weight over a race distance.
On the Citation, the air compressor and accumulator tank are buried in the rear diff housing. The wiring harness for the geartronics is also fairly substantial and integrated into the main harness. I wasn't lying when I said the installation took roughly 80 hours. Granted, it was my first time. Getting it off sure wouldn't take 80 hours, but it's no 20 minute job either.
The big problem with mechanical shifter is the lack of stiffness of the entire system & friction. Use a TOP QUALITY low friction cable & VERY STIFF attachment brackets & you will not have a problem, also make certain that the routeing keeps the cable away from the heat & that the bend radii are very generous.
We recently had our paddle shifter on our F600 with our D.R mechanical throttle blipper. It worked quite well but it still need some tuning & minor tweeks. I suspect the next gen will be even better. Of course in F600 our rules allow only mechanical systems so this will make us do the development work.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
Tried more than one cable, none of which was cheap, and subsequently a full rod linkage with bearings everywhere. Couldn't make it work. They always felt fine in the shop, but not on track. I suspect something about your setup may be better than the ones we tried, but I'm not sure what it could be. Perhaps there was some unseen flex somewhere. Could it be possible that the 600 transmissions are different in some way that allows the mechanical setup to work better?
I am certain that we are not even close to the performance of the Geartronics shifter. We still are missing occaisional downshifts from 6th gear when going down a couple of gears. We are going to continue to fine tune it. Hopefully we can continue to improve it.
Thanks ... Jay NovaK
Brandon had a pure linkage(no cable) with very little friction and lots of stiffness. When it worked fine, it was ok, but getting it to self-center and not miss a shift is a problem.
The geartronics fixed that.
That is actually the point that I was trying to make in the last shifter thread. The geartronics vs. a good manual shifter is not going to be worth time as long as the driver gets the shifts when he wants them. The geartronics shines when the manual shifter is not working well.
Some guys seem to be disabling the slipper clutches due to their being too disruptive.
But, don't discount the engine protection. Preventing overrevs is important, as well as how smooth the shifts are. Preventing the overrevs is going to be even more important for rental cars. I know that Sal from Philly motorsports lost one motor to a new driver accidentally downshifting too quickly. Blowing one motor and the following fire is likely to damage more $ than the shifter cost.
I certainly don't mean everyone, but I am sure that you have seen the same kind of people I have, that are always going to stand on the sidelines and talk about doing something and never actually do it.
It wouldn't make a lot of sense to keep a $4500 system when a few hundred dollar open loop system would do the same thing. It would make the most sense to try to recoup some of the investment by selling it to someone and then figure out what to do.
I have heard Niki say that he can't get his shifts done and that his FC car is more fun to drive because of the shifter issues in the FB.
Part of it is also that the F600 don't have the ridiculous bodywork width and brakes that the FB's have. FB bodywork is substantially wider than FA bodywork and that is part of the problem and it is only going to get worse as people start to figure out the aero.
Yes, I have come across one or two.
When you have a class that's rather infant in its' development, is growing at a good pace and gets lots of interest from others when at the track, the opinions of those on the sidelines should be given a little more weight.
on edit> by more weight I don't mean more weight than those currently in the class but more weight than bystanders would normally receive. I'm not talking about the one guy on the sidelines saying if FV's were only allowed turbos he'd join or if SpecMiatas were allowed 20" wheels he'd join.
Why not simply have a competition adjustment? Other classes do this- when Zetec was introduced to FC they had to run more weight...
The people who have spent the $$ on the shifter systems get to keep them and can enjoy the benefits but those who have not do not feel like the have to buy to be competitive.
I'll speak for myself- I choose FC because the target is not moving (or more accurately, moving very slowly) and I was one of the FB founders! Rob L is doing the same thing. I could get past the initial buy in cost but the thought of redesigning the car every year for the latest motor, shifters, and ?? turned me off.
I'm fearful that the run what you brung attitude will hurt the class.
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote